On Wednesday, 14 December 2011, the Australian National University (ANU) presented Professor Chubb the degree of Doctor of the University for his outstanding service to the University and his distinguished contributions to higher education and society.

Professor Chubb received his degree as part of the 2011 graduating ceremonies and also gave the keynote address to the graduands which you can read here.

At the initial invitation from the German government, Professor Chubb will depart on Thursday, 27 October for engagements across the UK and Europe.

As well as launching the Australian – German Science Circle, which is a program designed to promote mutual understanding of each country’s research landscape as well as provide a platform to explore the science linkages between our two countries, he will also meet the leaders of several international research agencies.

The visit also gives Professor Chubb the opportunity to promote Australia’s credentials as possible host of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope.

“Geographically, Australia offers the ideal environment for a radio telescope as large and sensitive as this. We, along with our partners New Zealand, have an extensive optic-fibre network already in place, impressive existing astronomy infrastructure and strong government backing,” Professor Chubb said.

“The international community stands to benefit most from this bid and I am fully committed to supporting Australia’s candidacy to host the SKA.”

Following his time in Europe, the Chief Scientist will present at various conferences in Washington DC, including ‘Neuroscience Downunder’ before visiting Ottawa to present a keynote address at the Canadian Science Policy Conference.

“As a global advocate for Australian science and innovation, I anticipate these meetings will prove highly beneficial to Australia. Opportunities like this will develop new, and strengthen existing, partnerships with leading global science policy makers crucial to Australia cementing its place on the global scientific stage,” Professor Chubb said.

“The importance of international collaboration for the Australian science community cannot be overstated.”

Although our population accounts for only 0.3% of the world’s, Australia currently contributes over 3% of the world’s scientific output.

“We are punching above our weight and performing incredibly well, but this figure also means that 96 odd percent of the world’s research is being done elsewhere and the time has passed that we can expect to share and gain from that knowledge without actively engaging with those communities,” Professor Chubb said.

The Chief Scientist will return to Australia late November.

National Science Week is an exciting 9 day long event showcasing science, technology and innovation across Australia essential to our wellbeing.This year’s celebration is from 13-21 August.

There will be over a thousand events throughout every state and territory as well as a National Tour with a broad range of scientists giving talks on areas of expertise. You can be part of this celebration by contributing to a National Project, or by taking part in a range of exciting activities.

 If you are thinking of getting involved or are wish to attend an event, check out the National Science Week web page for further information.

At this year’s AIBN Annual Research Symposium, Professor Ian Chubb spoke about the importance of nanotechnology and bioengineering. He also discussed what the Government is doing to support research into this field and the role this plays in creating a healthier and more prosperous society.

Click here to download the speech (pdf)

“Peter Gray, staff from the Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, thank you for asking me here to speak to you today.

I won’t talk a lot about science today, partly because it is not my place to come here to talk to you about your science – even though I once stated that since I could read English, and that I had actually used that ability, I could make a comment about where a particular science was heading. And I meant it; if you take the time and go to the trouble to read a fair amount of what is written by scientists, or summary statements by scientific academies or scientific and professional associations, you can draw inferences even if you are not a deep expert in a particular field.

But today I will speak to you primarily about something different: a new frontier in the astonishing world that nanotechnology and biotechnology are opening up – in medicine, new-age materials and in food.

The new frontier lies in the world of the everyday – people from all walks of life who revel in the wonders of science, find it baffling or, depending on their preconceptions, mind-numbingly dull or a cause for alarm.

Representatives of the AIBN and their associates at this symposium – scientists in research organisations worldwide for that matter – have been living and breathing bioengineering and nanotechnology for years. You understand it, and it gives you a thirst for more.

But spare a thought for those outside the scientific realm – our broader Australian community.

This is why I use the term frontier. For those Australians not involved in the day-to-day work of researchers at places like AIBN, asking them to accept nanotechnology and biotechnology is a huge leap into the unknown – a new and potentially frightening frontier.

Science is a great story but if we allow misunderstanding to flourish, if we don’t challenge misinformation when we see it or hear it, the community labours under incorrect assumptions. And unfortunately as is often the case with the unknown, inadequate explanation spawns mistrust.

This is why we, and our peers, must be at pains to ensure that all Australians know that real scientific endeavour is founded on the premise of good, ethically-based research to achieve the common good and is designed to lead to a healthier, wealthier and smarter society.

Science is presently represented differently: captured by one in the neat little expression: they would say that wouldn’t they; or by another who reminds us that government funds the research of scientists so presumably, they would say that wouldn’t they. Gross maybe, unexplained certainly, but an attempt to instill doubt in the public’s mind: Research, they hint, is less about the disinterested pursuit of truth than it is about cosying up to the agency that funds your business class travel.

Let us be clear: the public interest is important to what we do; and important in what we do. And it is that interest that captures the need for ethically conducted research that is indeed based on the disinterested pursuit of knowledge.

But we have to get the message out – not every now and then but always. We need to provide the public with the opportunity to understand the issues: the message scientists and researchers are attempting to get across – to explain who, how, what, where, when and why. We need to let them know that seeing two serious scientists debating a point on TV is not by definition a rift but more likely a public display of the scientific process at work – ideas are contestable, views are challenged and changed when better evidence is brought forward. And they are not changed if it is not.

The public has to trust science. But that trust should not be taken as a given; and winning it, earning it, should not be taken as an easy ride.

And, in particular, we need to work at it now; as we push science into new areas some of which at least will have serious effects on people’s lives, they will want reassurance that it can be trusted; that we can be trusted.

Nobody would accept that a new pharmaceutical could be put on the market untested in humans because scientists somewhere say it was designed to have only one targeted effect. They expect, even require, that it pass through a process that gives them confidence that side effects are restricted to a few, are small in number and controllable if they arise.

This is a place for government. There is a need to be seen to be leading the way in developing regulatory frameworks that will give the broader community the assurance it needs that the science is safe.

With respect to nanotechnology, the Government bases its position on three major principles:

• to protect the health and safety of humankind and the environment;
• to foster informed community debate; and
• to achieve economic and social benefit from responsible adoption of the technology.

To save buying into descriptions of countless government programs, let’s look at the area most relevant to your discussions today, the National Enabling Technologies Strategy – we all call it NETS. It is funded through the Future Industries component of the Super Science Initiative.

Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr told an ACTU OH&S and Workers’ Compensation Seminar last year that the Government regarded nanotechnology as an especially big issue for Australian workers increasingly encountering nanomaterials in the production environment and the broader workplace.

The Minister said we (Australia) needed to achieve the highest possible degree of material progress – without losing sight of obligations to protect the environment and the wellbeing of individuals and communities – and without unreasonably inhibiting innovation. An important path to walk.

To this end there are studies funded through NETS that are investigating things like: improved understanding of how nanoparticles behave; the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework –its responsiveness and strength; whether workplace control measures are equal to the challenge of dealing with nanomaterials.

These are important parts of the whole.

But there is another part of that whole: integrity. I believe it is the common thread that joins what we do across all the programs and all the regulations.

It is the integrity with which the scientists go about their work; it is the integrity of the regulatory frameworks; it is the integrity with which we treat our scientists across the board – heeding the body of evidence they have amassed and verified through credible research.

It all comes down to integrity. And making sure that the public is aware of the integrity with which science is conducted – and understand the means by which unethical behaviour is found out – whether by peer review or by regulatory framework.

It is one thing of course, to do the science well. If we are to achieve a better lot for humankind, the good science must be taken up and turned into products or services to provide that advantage.

There are a number of initiatives that will give NETS the “legs” to do so, so to speak.

The Department of Innovation engaged the research industry-led Australian Nanotechnology Alliance (ANA) to update the Nanotechnology Capability Report which outlines the capabilities of the sector in Australia. With the latest information on Australia’s nanotechnology sector, the fourth edition of the report contains entries from participating companies, research organisations and Government bodies. It enables connection between the private sector, research institutions, infrastructure bodies and Australian government agencies involved in nanotechnology.

One of NETS foci is on public engagement and the need to present science in a way that truly engages. A laudable aim; one that we all should follow. Other areas that fall within its ambit include the biotech sector – again, not entirely foreign to the audience today.

Exciting new developments in industrial biotechnology such as biofuels, bio-plastics and bio-chemicals, some undertaken right here at AIBN, offers us a glimpse into a low carbon future.

And in the health spectrum Australian biotech innovators like Acrux, Mesoblast and Biota Holdings are carrying the flag internationally. Here in Australia, companies are queuing behind them as they attain critical milestones like advanced-stage clinical trials, regulatory approvals and, for some, the holy grail of international capital and markets through landmark agreements.

With activities across such a broad range, I think we need to make it clear – in unambiguous language – that, as part of the Enabling Technologies Strategy, the Government is examining the environmental, health and safety effects of nanotechnology and biotechnology – and how to guard against any that may prove harmful.

This includes understanding the potential health and safety effects of nano-sized materials and investigating the effectiveness of workplace control measures for them. Vaccines and other medicines, ointments and lotions, manufactured materials and components … each and every one of them has to be exhaustively trialled and certified as safe.

To suggest otherwise would be preposterous and the sooner people realise how to judge the sometimes extravagant claims that certain scientific research is dangerous or life-threatening, the more rewarding the debate will be. The greater the level of understanding, the greater the level of support.

If we don’t counter claims when they are silly or wrong, with good sense, with rational explanations and with regulatory rigour, we will have lost at the first hurdle those with whom we want to engage.

We must be alert to a changing relationship between science and society – particularly where contentious technologies are concerned. Such technologies must have not only community support, but also meet community needs.

We learned from the first generation of Genetically Modified crops that consumers felt they delivered them few benefits. The perception was that companies and farmers were reaping the benefits, while the community carried the risks.

And while we’re talking about growing food, bear in mind that our global population, currently at the seven billion mark, is projected to reach nine billion by 2050.

To feed so many, we will have to double current levels of food production. That’s a horrifying statistic – I don’t think that’s too strong a word – in a world where 40 per cent of agricultural land is already badly degraded.

The Inter Action Council, an international body which has been monitoring these issues since the early 1980s, corroborates the OECD view.

It says that even the most optimistic forecasts suggest that some 700 million people, 200 million of them children, are likely to remain malnourished by the year 2020 – less than a decade away.

Scientists will have to play an important part in addressing the food gap and it will be a longer, harder row to hoe if, each time they arrive at a potential solution to world hunger, they have to run the gauntlet of adverse public opinion.

I wrote recently for the New Scientist that we have an obligation to use our expertise to help inform the public and policy makers – regardless of whether we are communicating topics we think are good or bad news. If we fear discussing risks as well as benefits, we diminish trust and increase the likelihood of the rejection of new technologies.

This is due in no small part to the largely uninformed who have the wherewithal to get their opinions heard. A better informed community would help put the doomsayers in their place.  

Then there are those who try to turn doubt and apprehension to their advantage. We need only to think back a few days to the fracas about sunscreen to find an example of that.

It’s natural that many contentious technologies are initially met with concern and viewed cautiously.

Conversely, fear campaigns extend those concerns.

Large slabs of the public are really only interested in the why and probably the how of the science you do – and will judge it harshly if it doesn’t align with their values.

We’ve seen this in the climate change debate; we’ve seen it with GM foods and crops, and with embryonic stem cells. Scientists have had to confront death threats, destruction of their research, legal action and misinformation campaigns from those ideologically opposed to their work.

But as much as you believe in the importance of your work you’ll need to believe in the importance of better communicating and engaging with the public. And engaging with our schools.

Only last week, an online teaching resource TechNyou, was launched at the Conference of Australian Science Teachers.

TechNyou, developed by science teachers for science teachers, focuses on biotechnology and nanotechnology, addressing the new science curriculum with background notes, videos, lesson outlines and classroom activities.

I said before that science is a great story.

We need to be able to tell it in plain language, free from embellishments and free from the misrepresentation that so colours what I hesitate to call “the debate”. We need to tell someone when they get it wrong – not one of us but all of us.

It’s too easy to dismiss a lone opinion as coming from a vested interest (although the they would say that wouldn’t they brigade do imagine a vast conspiracy of scientists with the single aim of reinforcing each other’s bid for more money.

It’s still a lot harder to ignore the combined opinion of an entire industry sector or school of scientific thought. It is this very point that we need to stand strong on and communicate to the public. We need to own this responsibility because if we don’t speak out about the science and its value and the fact that overwhelmingly it is conducted in a highly ethical environment and is truly based on the disinterested pursuit of knowledge so that we know more, understand better, and that is ultimately for the public good.

Thank you.”

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

Professor Chubb’s speech focused on his vision for science in Australia and how he wants to achieve this through his role as Chief Scientist.

You can download the speech here

“Good afternoon.

It’s a great pleasure to be with you today, for the fourth time, I believe, but this time in my new capacity as Australia’s Chief Scientist.  I look forward to having my free membership of the Club renewed – and promise I’ll be back in a year looking for the same outcome.

Let me start by assuring you that after one month in the job I know that I am far down a learning curve with a steep slope in front of me.  It’s a familiar place – I have been down here before.  Different curves maybe, but way down nonetheless. So at least I know what to do – learn before you speak.

This afternoon, therefore, I will focus on a bit of ‘the vision thing’: my role, not statistics and not great detail.

First question then: why did I accept appointment as Chief Scientist?  There is a simple response:

• The value of good science to our nation and the world is colossal – and I want to work for Australian science and its place in the world.

Science has got us to where we are today – many of the good bits and sometimes the bad; and it holds the key to our future.

It is the key to understanding and tackling the big issues we face as a nation and as a world.

Now, if science is so important – you may well ask – why does it struggle to cut through into the mainstream debate?

Unfortunately, we seem to be living in a world where sport, celebrity and the 24 hour news or, more accurately, a 24 hour commentary cycle sprinkled with news, seem to dominate relentlessly.

• Do any of us really believe that the future of the world depends on whether the Swans win this year’s flag?
• Does it really matter who wins MasterChef?
• And do we care if Shane Warne and Liz Hurley are about to get serious?

Of course, in the global scheme of things, none of these things matters much at all.

But science does.

Science can cure diseases. It has given us GPS and mobile ‘phones, and it has given us the ‘talking movies’ and the internet.

But because it’s everywhere, we don’t often seem to think about what science has done for us, just as we sometimes seem to take both the power and the potential of science for granted.  As in, she’ll be right, it’ll be there when we need it.’

But make no mistake, our future as a nation, our prosperity, our quality of life and the well being of the entire planet, all depend very much on science.

And as the challenges we face become increasingly complex, the importance of science, and the understandings derived from good and properly conducted science, will become ever more important.

To address the big issues – which include sustainably securing our economic, cultural and social prosperity – we require the input, the expertise and the guidance of our scientists.

So we need them, and we need their expertise, in many fields and across many fields.  To get them we have to continue to invest – in the right way, in the right place – and with the right amount and at the right time.

Unfortunately, expenditure on science is too often seen as a cost – something that is somehow taking away from other more pressing, more immediate needs. And its value gets lost in the ‘it costs a lot’ argument.

But far from being just another cost, expenditure on science is a sound and prudent investment.  We must encourage the Government to continue its commitment: it will reach nearly $9.4 billion this financial year and includes a record investment in CSIRO, important provision for infrastructure, supporting better the indirect costs of research, growing PhD scholarships and other important elements.  We need also to provide the Minister with the evidence to argue for growth.

And we have to make clear that we are in it for the long term. The dividends may be now, tomorrow, or they could be 10, or 20 or 30 years away.  We need them whenever they come.

In that regard, does anyone really think that the public research funds spent over years on much of agricultural research or energy or the cochlear implant, the cervical cancer vaccine or the influenza drugs was not an investment?

Of course not.

In economic and in quality of life terms, for ourselves and others around the world, investments like these have been an unparalleled success.

Australia must continue to expand its scientific capabilities if we are to remain internationally engaged, competitive and relevant.

And sure… this costs money.  And of course how much will always be a judgement call

But if we want that prosperous, healthy and secure future we must organise for it and continue to invest for it.  It won’t just happen because some time out there we will wish that we had.

We don’t want to find ourselves in the situation of importing skills, technology and know-how – we don’t want to go back to what we used to be.   

Let me remind you.

For the first half of the last century, there was little (not none, but little) research done in Australia.  The CSIR (later CSIRO) was established in 1926 – but research was not seen to be a central function of universities.  This was not true in Germany from about 1810, or the United States where teaching inspired by research on the German model flourished from the 1860s. 

Britain was slow to follow: Oxford introduced the DPhil (PhD) based on the German and US model in 1914 (the first in the UK to do so). 

We were like Britain, just slower: we produced our first PhD graduate from the University of Melbourne in 1948.

In a manner of speaking, Australia was then a mendicant country.  We contributed little to the world’s stock of knowledge but we hoped to get what we needed when or whenever we needed it.  Some would argue that we often got something, but not always what we needed.

Then in the mid-1940s, post-war reconstruction of Australia was planned and led by politicians and public servants with imagination and vision. They saw that it was time for a ‘new’ Australia, a different Australia that was socially, economically and culturally prosperous, and an aware and respected international citizen.

To that group, it was not an option to let Australia become again a country that depended so much on what others did.  It was accepted that we needed to contribute to the world’s knowledge, and through that contribution help Australia assume its proper place in world affairs – as it was put.  They sought to change the culture – and they did.  

They established the ANU as a research hub; they encouraged other universities and now Australian universities educate students in a research-rich environment and are major contributors to research and development an innovation.

But sometimes prosperity breeds complacency.  Now I sometimes hear: why?  Why can’t we let others do the hard yards, do the investment and carry the cost, while we float by extracting what we want for a minimal effort?  Not earn our place, just expect it.  A free rider.

We are small in population terms.  We are small in university terms.  We are small in research terms.  But we do make, in many fields, a major contribution to the world, partly through our publications and their quality, partly through the perspective that comes from being who we are, and partly through the particular perspective that comes with being where we are.  And while we may contribute just 4 or so per cent to the world’s knowledge, we also must have people with the capacity to use some of the 96 per cent to our advantage.

I think that those planning reconstruction after 1945 can be proud of their legacy.  Those of us who have inherited it need to make sure that it is not squandered.  It is up to us to ensure that our contribution to knowledge is of a high order, and of high quality, so that Australia’s place in ‘world affairs’ is secure.  It will be secure if we have something to say, and it will be because the world wants to hear what we have to say – because of what we do.  And to paraphrase Simon McKeon because we do something more than look after ourselves. (The Age, 19 June 2011).

It does mean that we have to be serious.  We can’t be unaccountable and we can’t just drift.  We have to be considered and purposeful. And our work has to be of up there with the best.  Our decisions and our policies must be made consciously on the basis of good evidence.  

It is a simple fact that quality science can’t be done at low cost, and mediocre science is no more acceptable than a ‘begging bowl’ would be. We need to make hard decisions about what we can and cannot do – since we can’t do everything or support just anything. That means making one of the hardest decisions of all – selective investment. 

I want the Office of the Chief Scientist to play a substantial part in providing the evidence that not just underpins the hard decisions, but encourages them to be made. 

In Australia we have the capacity to do what has to be done – and steps have been taken.  But we need to use our present wealth and invest it wisely, with foresight and for the long-term.

Being a quarry is not a wise or sustainable path for any nation to take.

Way back in 1990, one John Dawkins said: ‘More than ever before, the reservoir of talent in our people will have to eclipse our great natural resources as the determinant of our success.  We will have to use our intelligence and our wit to cement the processes of change and to secure and improve our place in the world.  This involves working better and smarter, scuttling mediocrity for quality and distinction.  We cannot enter the next century rollicking on the sheep’s back or creaking and swaying in some coal truck.’[1]’

True then, true (or even truer) now.  Even if it is the trucks creaking along full of our present day assets that provide us with much of the wherewithal we need to invest wisely in our future, sustainable assets.

If we are to get there, it means continuing to invest in our intelligence and our wit: in Research and Development, amongst other things, and supporting innovation.

It means working with industry to develop and use new technologies.

It also means supporting ‘blue sky’ science where the benefits are less immediately obvious but are nonetheless critical because it provides much of the essential knowledge used for application-derived benefits.

The spinoffs are often unusual and unconnected to the original purpose but they can deliver massively.

• Think of Wi Fi technology – it is undoubtedly one of the most practical scientific discoveries ever – but it began with a group of radio astronomers listening to faint radio whispers from exploding black holes!

I’d also argue that whatever we do as scientists has to be acceptable to the community as a whole – and that means that science is conducted with, and in the context of, work in the humanities, arts and social sciences.  These disciplines offer much to help us understand and change our world, and without them the full benefits from science as we know it could be lost.

Make no mistake; the successful and prosperous nations of the future will be those whose communities embrace science in its context and in all its forms. 

I am not saying science has all the answers.

Science is not always perfect and interpretations of observations are not always unanimously agreed.  Except in some fields of the more theoretical kind, science won’t often ‘prove’ things. There will be uncertainty.  But good science will increase probability through the weight of evidence from ‘possible’ to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and through its processes: ideas, critique, observation or experimentation, critique, publication in peer-reviewed literature for exposure to the world of peers; robust critique and debate of the results and their meaning, more experimentation or more observation, or replication or modification, critique … and the cycle repeats.

Scientific consensus ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – based on the weight of evidence, the collective judgment and the  position of the majority of the relevant expert scientists – provides the best guidance we have for decisions that are informed and rational.

This all makes science too important to be left at the periphery of the decision making process.

It needs to be front and centre.

I am pleased to say that steps have been taken. Earlier this year, before I started in this job, the APS200 project was launched.  It will start later this year and investigate the Place of Science in policy development in the Public Service.  

Part of my responsibility is to ensure that the science is available; that scientific evidence is put in front of the politicians and policy writers in the public service.  It may be from my office, or it may be because we know who to call to get it there – advice fully, frankly and directly available. 

Quite rightly, politicians will take into account a wide range of considerations from a multiplicity of sources – and make their judgements and decisions accordingly.

My goal is to ensure they have no excuses for not having the relevant scientific advice in front of them.

Ultimately, what they do with that advice is their business. But if politicians consistently ignore scientific evidence they will be doing themselves and the nation a great disservice.

And ultimately they will have to answer to their constituents.

And this is why it is so important that science is also made accessible to the broader community.

The best way for science to have influence is for there to be a level of science literacy at all levels in the community.

This is the philosophy underpinning the national strategy for the coordinated science engagement and communication strategy – Inspiring Australia. 

Inspiring Australia is important because it promotes science to all Australians.

If the community understands, appreciates and values science – this will inevitably be reflected in our political process and the decisions that are made.

And if as a nation we are to make bold, visionary and difficult decisions we need a scientifically literate community.  One that understands that there will be uncertainty, but one that knows to give appropriate weight to the consensus and to the critic.  One that knows the critic is not always right – if not always wrong.  Galileo was right, for example, when he put science against dogma – observation against opinion – not the other way around.

Science properly conducted will always have room for alternative explanations deduced from properly conducted science.  Progress is made when outcomes or observations from that science are debated and when they confirm or they change what we think.  It is how science works, and it is how science advances our understanding – changing the consensus based on what science has revealed.

Too often the scientific discussion gets mixed up with the political debate – or with the political response to the scientific evidence.

But for it all to work, we need the right science and the right science education – the right profile of disciplines.  

I want to take up this issue.  One of my first tasks will be to carry out a thorough check of Australia’s science sector, its profile and its sustainability.

In particular we need to see how well we are preparing to meet the expected needs of the future. 

At present the profile of Australian science, so much of which is in the universities, is heavily influenced by what undergraduate students choose to study.  When universities respond to demand, as they must, Australia risks losing capability in, say, physics – losing staff, infrastructure and graduates – if fewer and fewer undergraduates study physics.  

At some stage we need to make a judgement about what is going to be important and what will be needed.  And knowing what is being done elsewhere in the world will be an important aid to judgement.

Then we need to decide how to invest in order to develop the science profile of the country in a strategic way – and not leave so much of it to student study patterns offset by some cross-subsidy.

As we contemplate the profile of science, we need to be attentive to academic and industry needs.

Increased linkages between researchers and industry, higher levels of R&D and the successful commercialisation of good ideas are all essential if we are to translate our scientific excellence into national prosperity.

Just as science needs to be accessible to politicians and the community – it also needs to be available to – and to contribute to – the business sector.

Science and innovation are the building blocks of a resilient and dynamic economy that boasts high wage, high skill and sustainable jobs.

We need to get this right – because if we want science to contribute to our lives in 5, 10 or 20 years we need to start producing the scientists.  Or developing a highly targeted and attractive immigration program!  Or both.

Finally, I want to reiterate just how important it is that we engage our young people in science

If we want to be a scientifically literate nation – we simply must inculcate the coming generations with an enthusiasm for the wonder, beauty and endless potential of science.

Science is awe inspiring – we need to stir the imagination of our youth so they pursue a career in science or, at the very least, grow into informed decisions makers who have some understanding of science and how it works.

Some of us in the room will remember the heady days of space travel and television as defining scientific images of our time.

The time has come to rekindle this type of excitement.

And there is no shortage of inspiration – the SKA and the Giant Magellan Telescopes, the Large Hadron Collider, the promise of commercial space flights, sustaining our environment and curing diseases are all big projects that stir the imagination and reinforce the importance of science to us all.

As part of raising an appreciation of science we need to make sure the coming generations are equipped to handle and make the most of the seemingly endless potential and applications of science in their lives. 

We need science teachers and we need to support them through their careers.  We need students.  It won’t work without either. And to get them we will need to be careful, strategic and willing to invest.

To tackle and overcome the challenges of our time – we need science.

As Chief Scientist I will speak up and be an advocate for science.  I know that some of my best work won’t be visible – I have never known a government to respond well to constant megaphone advocacy from people in positions like mine.  But I’ll be around.

I haven’t taken the role on because I am hoping that people might start calling me ‘Chief’.

And I am not here because I can’t find anyone to play golf with, though the science of the game continues to elude me.

I am here on behalf of science.

I am here to help ensure the immense potential of science to create a better and more prosperous Australia is fully realised.

And for what it’s worth:

• The Swans were at $2.45 to win the flag – a couple of weeks ago and $24 after last weekend.  
• Somebody was evicted from MasterChef last night.
• And Liz Hurley is now officially divorced, further fuelling speculation about her future with Mr Warne.

With the exception perhaps of the Swans, these things don’t matter.

Science does.

Thank you.”

[1] The Hon JS Dawkins, Minister for Employment, Education and Training Can Australia become the clever country? Australia Day Address, Fremantle,1990

The 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games have had sport scientists’ minds racing for decades.  It was an Olympics where some records were smashed beyond comprehension, and others were completely untouchable.

Why? The answer is up in the air. Literally. Mexico City sits 2,240 metres above sea level where the high altitude and thin air can wreak havoc on the human body.

For Professor Chris Gore, Head of Physiology at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), understanding the effects of altitude has become a fixation.

“It’s been my passion for 15 years. I think it’s fascinating and I’m always trying to find new ways to help athletes and coaches use altitude training more effectively.”

Professor Chris Gore, Head of Physiology at the Australian Institute of Sport

So what happens to the air at high altitudes to affect our bodies so much?

Any given volume of air is comprised of 79% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen and 0.1% other gases such as argon and krypton. But as you get higher and higher above sea level, the pressure of the atmosphere decreases.

This is due to the effects of gravity (which keeps air close to the ground) and heat (as you get closer to the sun) which cause molecules to bounce off one other and expand. So as you reach higher altitudes, the air expands.

While the composition of the air stays the same, the expansion means that the air is ‘thinner’ – so in essence, at higher altitudes you inhale less oxygen and nitrogen molecules than you would at sea level.

This drives a cascade of physiological responses in the human body.  To begin with, your body increases its heart rate and respiratory rate to increase the amount of oxygen taken in and circulated around the body.  So for example, while an athlete might normally run with a heart rate of 150 beats per minute, at high altitude it might increase to 165.

Then the body begins to respond and adapt to the altitude (a process called acclimatization). More than 200 genes are turned on in response to altitude, and one that is most commonly thought of is that which induces the creation of more red blood cells thereby increasing the amount of hemoglobin in the blood.

Hemoglobin is the protein that binds oxygen molecules to red blood cells.  The more hemoglobin in the blood cells, the more efficient the cells will be at carrying oxygen around the body.  This means that even though less oxygen is taken into the lungs, it is more easily transported to the muscles.

Finally, as you breathe faster and faster, the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood is reduced, which leads to the blood becoming less acidic.  To counter this, the kidneys release blood bicarbonate to try to balance the PH level.  For athletes, this is a big advantage since blood bicarbonate is the primary source of protection for muscles against lactic acid – the waste that builds up during exercise and leaves muscles feeling stiff and sore.

While most of the scientific world has focused on the benefits of more haemoglobin following altitude training, Professor Gore and his colleagues have looked at the range of other effects.

His work has proven that muscle buffering capacity is improved and that blood lactate levels during exercise are lowered.  Additionally, the AIS scientists have found that athletes become more efficient after altitude exposure.  Just like high altitude natives, athletes are able to use less oxygen to do the same amount of work after they have been at simulated altitude.

The down side however, is that many of these physiological responses do not occur straight away.  It can take days, even weeks for the human body to fully adapt to the effects of altitude and for athletes to reap the benefits of better muscle protection and more efficient oxygen transportation.

Scientists have determined that at high altitudes of 2,400 meters plus, we inhale approximately three quarters of the amount of oxygen molecules that we would at sea level.  This decreases as you go higher.  As a reference, on the summit of Mount Everest (8,848m above sea level) we inhale only a third of the amount of oxygen we would at sea level, which is not enough to sustain human life. 

Altitude Training at the AIS

To simulate this low atmospheric pressure, enabling athletes to get the benefits of altitude training without having to travel to high altitude areas, scientists at the Australian Institute of Sport have developed an ‘altitude house’.

This house, comprised of 12 beds, bathroom, kitchen and a lounge, simulates what it would be like to live at high altitude.  The AIS recreate the low pressure atmosphere of 2500 metres by changing the composition of the air within the house to approximately 85% nitrogen and 15% oxygen. The air is not thinner, but the presence of less oxygen is physiologically equivalent to being at altitude.

Athletes from endurance sports like cycling, rowing, race walking and swimming live in the house for 3-4 weeks at a time, a couple of times a year.  At the same time, they maintain their standard training regime in the normal atmosphere in Canberra, which is 600 metres above sea level.

According to Professor Gore, this ‘live high, train low’ program enables athletes to reap the benefits of high altitude living, while still enabling them to train with the same intensity and frequency.

“Australia is at a disadvantage to other countries because we don’t really have big mountains for our athletes to live or train on, so the altitude house allows us to simulate what other countries have already,” Professor Gore said.

“And this way we get similar benefits from the altitude house that we would get from natural altitude by flying the athletes to train in say Europe, but without having to sacrifice their access to their physios, doctors, nutritionists, friends and family.”

Some athletes use the house as preparation for events where they will be competing at high altitudes.  Mainly however, coaches are using the ‘altitude’ house as a way to improve performance at sea-level events.

“By living in the house for 12 hours or so a day, the athlete’s red blood cell counts increase, their haemoglobin increases. As well, their muscle buffering capacity, ability to handle lactic acid and their efficiency also improves. They can then use these factors to their advantage in training and competitions.

“Overall, we’re talking about a 1-2% increase in performance, which mightn’t sound like much, but can be the difference between a medal and failing to qualify,” Professor Gore said.

But the effects don’t last forever.  For example, Professor Gore quotes a study where Kenyan runners who lived and trained in high altitude all their lives were taken to a low-altitude region of Germany to train.  After 6 weeks they runners had lost 5% of their haemoglobin showing a relatively fast de-adaptation[i].

“The verdict is still out, but we’re looking at benefits lasting for between 2-4 weeks for sea level athletes who return to normal sea level training.”

For Professor Gore, one of the most interesting things about altitude is its ability to both hinder and help athletes, depending on their event.

“In cycling for example, the thin air means there is less drag, and in short stints in particular, athletes’ ability to absorb oxygen is not badly affected.  This is true of almost all explosive events, including sprints, long jump and triple jump.

“But for endurance events, like the ones our altitude training athletes compete in, kayaking, rowing and race walking, they are hit hard by the lack of oxygen and the lack of air resistance means little,” Professor Gore concluded.

Professor Chris Gore in the Altitude House at the Australian Institute of Sport

[i] N. Prommer, S. Thoma, L. Quecke, T. Gutekunst, C. Volzke, N. Wachsmuth, A. M. Niess, and W. Schmidt. Total hemoglobin mass and blood volume of elite Kenyan runners. Med.Sci.Sports Exerc. 42 (4):791-797, 2010.

Say you work in an office with around 20 employees. If two of them shared the same birthday, would you remark on it as an interesting coincidence? A rarity?

Many people might, because our instinct tells us that it’s quite unlikely that two people in an office of around 20 people were born on the same day of the year. After all, there are only 20-odd people and there are 365 possible birthdays (for simplicity’s sake, let’s ignore the possibility that anyone was born on February 29 in a leap year).

But, are our instincts right? Mathematics allows us to work out just how likely, or probable, such a coincidence is.

The answer might surprise you. Take an office with 23 employees: with 23 randomly-selected birthdays, the probability that two or more will be the same is just over 50 per cent—a better than even chance! And with those odds, it’s hardly remarkable when such a coincidence occurs.

Read on if you’d like to get into the nitty-gritty of the probability calculation.

In the mean time here are some other results to variations on the ‘birthday problem’: in a group of 40 randomly selected people, the chance that two or more would share the same birthday goes up to around 90 per cent; in a group of 14 people, the chance that two or more would have birthdays that are either the same or only one day apart is around 50 per cent; in a group of 88 people, there’s an even chance that three or more people would share the same birthday.

So, how do we work this out? By working out the probability that there are no shared birthdays in the group, we can then work out the probability that there are two or more people sharing a birthday.

This is because these are the only two possible outcomes—either (a) no one in the group shares a birthday with another in the group, or (b) at least two people share the same birthday. Because these are the only two possibilities, their respective chances must add up to 100 per cent, and by working out one chance, we can work out the other.

Let’s put our group of 23 people in a line and work our way through from end to end.

The first person will have one of 365 possible birthdays (as described below*). Now we work out the probability that the second person in line does not share the same birthday as the first, which is 364/365. Why this number? Because, out of the 365 possible birthdays for person number two, 364 of them will not match the first person’s birthday, thus giving a probability of 364/365.

Next we take the third person in line and work out the probability that he or she does not share a birthday with either of the first two: this chance is 363/365, following the reasoning of there being 363 out of 365 possible birthdays that do not match the two birthdays of persons one and two.

Applying the same logic to the fourth person, we get a probability of 362/365 that their birthday will not be the same as the three people before them in the line. We then continue assigning probabilities down the line until we get to the 23^rd person, who will have a 343/365 chance of not sharing a birthday with the 22 other people in the group.

We now use the calculated chances that each successive person in line will not share a birthday with those preceding to work out the probability that the entire group has no shared birthdays.

In words, this is the chance that i) the second person does not share a birthday with first (chance = 364/365), AND ii) the third person does not share a birthday with the first or second (363/365), AND iii) the fourth…(and so on)…AND, finally, xxii) the 23^rd does not share a birthday with any of the previous 22 (343/365).

The probability that ALL of these things will occur is obtained by multiplying together the chances of each individual event occurring:

Probability that there are no shared birthdays in a group of 23

= 364/365 x 363/365 x 362/365 x 361/365 x ……. x 344/365 x 343/365 (you can work this out on a calculator)

= 0.4927… = 49.3% (rounded)

Therefore, we know the probability that at least two people share the same birthday is:

100% – 49.3% = 50.7% —better than even!

*Assumptions behind the calculation: we assume birthdays are spread evenly throughout the year—that is, each day of the year is equally likely as a birthday. In real life this may not be true, as the birth rate can change month to month, season to season, leading to an uneven distribution of birthdays. Some births are more likely to occur on weekdays than weekends, such as those by caesarean section, and this may affect the distribution of birthdays for certain populations (e.g. a class of children all born in the same year).

The second assumption is that we ignore the possibility of people being born on February 29 and examine the case where a population has their birthdays evenly distributed across the 365 days of a non-leap year. Again, this is not true in reality, but considering that February 29 is just one possible birthday out of every four years—so 1 possible birthday out of 1461 days—the simplified case of 365 possible birthdays is accurate enough to give us a general idea about the probabilities involved in the birthday problem.

Further reading:

Matthews, R. and Stones, F. (1998). Coincidences: the truth is out there. Teaching Statistics, 20: 17–19. Available at http://ts.rsscse.org.uk/gtb/matthews.pdf

Crilly, T. (2007). 50 mathematical ideas you really needs to know. Quercus Publishing Plc, London

Written by Sarah White, Science Research Officer in the Office of the Chief Scientist.

Professor Chubb was formally appointed to his new role by Innovation Minister Kim Carr at Parliament House in Canberra today.

Professor Chubb has had a distinguished career in higher education and research and recently retired after a decade as vice-chancellor of the Australian National University.

A neuroscientist by training, he has co-authored some 70 full papers and co-edited one book all related to his research. He later took on leadership roles in university administration and sector advocacy bodies.

Professor Chubb will work closely with the Gillard Government to provide highest quality advice on science and technology issues that impact on Australia and the world.

The Prime Minister said as a past advocate in the university sector Professor Chubb would effectively engage with industry, researchers and the wider community as part of important scientific debates

Senator Carr said a lifetime of work in the research community was recently recognised in Canberra when Professor Chubb was named the ACT’s Australian of the Year for his contribution to higher education.

“He also understands that government needs frank and objective advice and communities need strong advocates. Professor Chubb is an outstanding leader. I congratulate him on his appointment and look forward to working with him.”

Professor Chubb began his three year term on 23 May 2011.

Download a biography here in PDF format or RTF format or listen to an interview conducted this morning for ABC Radio.

The majority of Australia’s coal-fired power stations are several decades old. With no new power stations coming online in the near future, the question remains how existing stations will cope with the added pressure of rising demand.

But Dr Warwick Payten, a materials engineer at ANSTO, thinks he has the solution.

The answer, at least in part, could be Remlife – a piece of software that will enable power stations companies to gauge the wear and tear of their plants infrastructure, and in turn, generate electricity more reliably.

“The software calculates the damage a power plant sustains during its operating cycle, which can then predict how much longer plants can operate safely,” Warwick explained.

“Materials that are subjected to high temperatures undergo changes that limit their operating life. These changes compromise the integrity of the material over time which in turn, limits the life of the power station.  Remlife analysis ensure that the ageing infrastructure that exists now can keep operating safely as long as possible, potentially deferring replacement plant investment in some cases,” he said.

“If plant operators better manage their operating profiles and more accurately identify areas that need pro-active maintenance, then you have the capacity to increase the life of the station and boost the efficiency of the unit. This limits operating costs by getting things up and running a lot quicker,” he added.

 “The Remlife program means that, rather than spending a week to assess a single component within the power plant, we can now carry out that assessment in minutes.”

Current power stations using the Remlife software include:, Eraring NSW,  Wallerawang NSW, Kwinana WA, Muja WA, Stanwell QLD, Tarong North QLD, Gladstone QLD, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B VIC and Torrens Island SA.

To learn more about Remlife or ANSTO visit: www.ansto.gov.au