LitFuse » research

Goyder Research Institute

litfuse — Sat, 29 May 2010 02:13:58 +0000

A new $50 million water research institute will be established in South Australia to help secure and manage the State’s water supply.
Premier Mike Rann and the Federal Minister for Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr announced on 27 May a new Goyder Institute for Water Research, which will position South Australia as a world leader in water innovation and science.

The State Government will provide $25 million over five years for the institute, which will be matched in kind by the CSIRO, the University of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. The institute will provide independent scientific advice on South Australia’s water system, improving the State Government’s ability to forecast threats to water security and develop an integrated approach to water management.

This is an important investment by the State Government in the long term prosperity and sustainability of South Australia, and a great tribute to the vision and persistence of the South Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Ian Chessell.

Written by Paul Dalby, 29 May 2010

Water science and reform challenges

litfuse — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:33:07 +0000

In a recent address to the Australian Academy of Science, the Chair of the National Water Commission, Ken Matthews, discussed a range of far-reaching reforms to arrangements for water science in Australia.

Mr Matthews said that some of the key requirements were for less-fragmented water science institutions, optimisation of research infrastructure; and better user/provider connectivity.

In South Australia, there have several attempts to achieve this over the last few years, but the formation of a single Water Agency under Minister Paul Caica, and the proposed formation of a single, virtual water research “institute” in South Australia is an exciting new development and should be a huge leap forward in achieving the aspirations outlined by Mr Matthews.

Some of this article is quoted from EnviroInfo. Subscribe

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

Linking Policy to Science

litfuse — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:21:01 +0000

Corey, thanks for posting a link to the Gibbons et al paper on linking science to policy makers. The suggestions by Gibbons et al are spot on. Policy makers operate in short time frames and must take into account much more information than just that of science. For example, people often say “why doesn’t someone just fix the Murray Darling Basin”? We know that the science says that the ecological systems need more water. But policy makers are not just getting information from ecologists. They are also getting information from rural psychologists telling them that there is widespread depression and even suicides. Economists tell them that whole economies are collapsing. Political advisers are telling them that local communities need to be appeased. Local, regional and global industries are lobbying hard to survive. Media players may emphasise certain problems that shift community perceptions and make it difficult to get community support for certain actions.

The reason we have a political process is to try to balance all of this information and all of these needs. You will never be able to model it perfectly and come up with THE right answer. We live in a political system where all ideas are contestable, even ideas based on very sound science. This is a good thing. Whenever communities have vested all knowledge and power in a few people – disaster has always ensued.

If scientists want to be influential in this world, they must be:

1. Very honest about what the science says. As we can see from the climate change debate, it does not help the cause of putting across a credible message on science when the results are exaggerated to try and build support for a particular cause. Let the truth tell its own story. In the end civilisations rise and fall on the political process. There is not much you can do to change that. Go along for the ride.

2. Very vocal about what the science says, but more circumspect about what the response should be. Scientists can appear arrogant when they presume that they know the right response. It is important to suggest policy responses and explain what you think the implications are of different approaches, but stick to your knitting and talk about what you know about most of all – the science.

3. Tell your story. People love stories, which is why singing contests, sport, soap operas and crime shows are more popular than shows about science. If you want to reach more people, put a story around what you are trying to say. Corey’s blog-post on how frogs were disappearing because of the global appetite for frogs legs went viral because it was a interesting story. And the science message got out as a result. Some scientists complain to me that this is “spin”. True, but not in the sense that you are trying to deceive someone, just that you are trying to get them interested. You are showing respect to your audience by “spinning” the message in an interesting way.

4. I need to hear it at least seven times before I’ve heard it. Putting out one media release, or one article or one presentation and thinking that you’ve done the job of communicating is delusional. Good communicators get their message out lots of times in lots of different ways. When your audience has heard the message so many times they are getting sick of it, (think Kevin Rudd and “working families” or Tony Abbot and “great big Labor tax”) they have finally heard it.

5. Maintain patience and pressure. It is sometimes frustrating that no action occurs even when you think it is obvious that it should. Don’t burn your bridges by taking it out on policy makers in government. You may need to work with them for many years to come, and they are likely to get more powerful over time, not less. But on the other hand, don’t let up the pressure. Maintain a professional tone to your discussions and presentations in the media. In the end, you will mostly be respected if you keep telling the story about the science. And policy makers can be just as frustrated as you about the lack of action as you are, even if they are not allowed to show it.

I’ll finish this post with a quote from Machievelli, one of the great thinkers on political science, said that “… nothing is more difficult than to introduce a new order. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new…”

True

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 February 2010

What the hell is transdisciplinary research?

litfuse — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:53:08 +0000

Frank Wyatt from Enterprising Partnerships has been pushing me to think about transdisciplinary research as he has been helping the Wine2030 Research Cluster a the University of Adelaide refine its business strategy. I like having these discussions with Frank, partly because we come at these issues from different perspectives. Being of the X-generation I am naturally cynical, and so have a deep suspicion of the re-badging of old terms to look like something new and important (eg. ‘Program Logic’ in environmental management), or a fixation with new ways of doing things at the expense of common sense (eg. a fixation by science managers on ‘collaboration’, instead of ‘outcomes’). Nevertheless, I agree with Frank that science managers need to keep encouraging researchers to look beyond their traditional areas of specialty to discover and invent new ideas and understanding.

I see researchers becoming more interested in working across disciplines, working collaboratively and solving real world problems, but not for the sake of it, to discover new things and do things previously unimaginable. They still work alone and on narrow fields of intense specialty, because break-throughs are found there also. If trans-disciplinary research is going to become more widely adopted, it needs to demonstrate its value, and there need to be tools individuals can pick up to quickly adopt their current expertise to new problem solving processes.

Mike Seyfang’s blog on design, thinking and science describes nicely how transdisciplinary science is a substantially difference science than traditional science collaboration. It requires new skills. In a podcast linked to on Mike’s blog, Tamath Rainsford argues that for transdisciplinary science to succeed, we need “specialising generalists”, people who know enough about a discipline to add value to discussions across a number of discipline areas (eg. Wayne Meyer from University of Adelaide can debate eloquently with economics, agronomists, modellers and soil scientists). She also argues that we need to train scientists with new tools so that they can more effectively participate in transdisciplinary research, such as soft operations research, systems thinking, heuristics, philosophy, working in teams, communication, risk management, decision making processes.

I have seen scientists training their students in these tools for the last 5-10 years, and the number who are is growing. Hugh Possingham, now at the University of Queensland, trains his students in these tools, as well as games theory. His research group is one of the most successful ecological research teams in Australia.

Mike list some common themes that emerge from his reading and thinking on transdisciplinary research. Mikes learnings are in italic, followed by my comments in normal txt:

Play – a key ingredient in emergent behaviour, playing around with stuff leads to interesting possibilities and great questions. Who resources this stuff? The challenge fopr me is that I need to grow the business. Play must lead to tangible results reasonably soon, or must not distract (too much) from going to where the resources are
Expand – pure reductionist thinking and methods have served us well in the scientific method and will continue to do so. While we are busy learning more and more about less and less, we should take time out to expand our horizons from time to time. Agree, but again, who is encouraging, rewarding and resourcing? Is this why large research programs are successful over small, short term projects. They give people the opportunity to experiment and play?
Work at the boundaries – one of the key tenets of Transdisciplinarity is to step outside the comfort zone of a single discipline, go beyond collaboration with other disciplines by working at the boundaries. Warning: will expose one to risk and possibly the need to develop new language. (worth it). I’ve seen some of the most exciting ideas for research invented around a table when two specialists meet for the first time. It is beautiful to watch.
Embrace Risk – learn to fail cheaply and often. You have described my life.
Open Co-operation – pass it forward, share. The best minds do this. They are not afraid to give ideas away. Because they know they have too many for one lifetime to resolve.
Swim up-stream and be counter-cultural. I’m not sure this relates to trans-disciplinary science, but it makes old rebels like Mike and I feel smug saying it.
Trans-disciplinary does not replace traditional research – is an added component. Let’s be careful about telling over-worked, under-paid scientists that they need to throw away their old models and adopt our new great ideas on how they should be doing research. These are new tools to add to the researchers amoury, along with statistics, gell blocks and coffee.
Speed the Process of Innovation through prototypes, enabling more breakthrough. I have been slow on the uptake on this. I have been resistant to the idea of investing development funds on research, but perhaps if targeted cleverly, will lead to good returns in terms of new business.

Would love to read responses to these thoughts.

Written by Paul Dalby on 1 October 2009

Darren Willis on Adaptive Flows Management Framework

litfuse — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:58:57 +0000

Darren Willis from Natural Logic presents the Adaptive Flows Management Framework developed for the Upper South East Salinity and Flood Management Program. Darren presented this at the Living Laboratories workshop on developing a research prospectus for the Fleurieu Swamps in South Australia. A copy of the Powerpoint presentation can be downloaded here. More information on the workshop can be found here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 September 2009

How to save the Coorong

litfuse — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:50:07 +0000

On this blog, there have been a number of posts about the plight of the Coorong, a terminal estuarine system at the end of the Murray River along the coast of South Australia.

In July 2007, I posted a link to presentations by Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide on the “Death of the Coorong“. David Paton, the leading expert on the Coorong, described the horrible decline of birds, plants, fish and invertebrates in the Coorong system, as a result of years of man-made and natural drought conditions. It should be noted that 90% of waterbirds in the Murray Darling Basin used to live in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. David Paton said the result of continued inaction is likely to be the extinction of some species in the Coorong, and perhaps the compete extinction of the Fairy Tern globally. His student, Dan Rogers presented research on waterbirds in the Coorong in November 2007. Dan argued for an integrated management system to support policy decisions on managing the Coorong.

In May 2008, I pointed to a series of videos available for download from Catalyst describing the problems of acid sulphate soils and low flows in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. In one of the videos, Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, proposes a different water sharing model for the River Murray that would give the environment a larger share of the water in the system at low flows. In March 2008, I had interviewed Mike Young on the challenges facing the River Murray system and he proposed two key steps to create a “Future-proofed Murray Darling Basin“

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

This has not happened yet, and given the pace of reform nationally, is unlikely to happen for some time yet, if at all. This is a complex problem, and it is difficult to trade off the needs of different users of water in the River system, especially when you are not always sure who really needs what water and when.

In a piece of positive news, a recent study by scientists on the Coorong have identified an important number – 300GL. This is the amount of water that needs to flow out at the end of the Murray River to maintain the health of the River. This number is based on an impressive, interdisciplinary and integrated research program called CLLAMMecology, but it gives a simple piece of advice to government. You need 300GL of water flowing out the bottom of the River to maintain the health of the Coorong. The Coorong is a Ramsar wetland, and government has a responsibility to the global community to protect this habitat which supports bird populations that migrate to countries across the northern hemisphere. I suspect 300GL of water out of the bottom of the system will deliver a whole range of other environmental benefits upstream as well. 300GL would be 2% of diversions in an ‘average’ year, and 5% of diversions in years more typical of the last five. Setting such a target would meet Mike Young’s principle of “entitlement and allocation regime…that can be confidently explained ….that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future “.

You can download podcasts and videos from the CLLAMMecology study presentations here.

You can register for the Litfuse feed on your i-tunes or mp3 player: http://feeds.litfuse.com.au/litfuse

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 July 2009

Environment Institute Launch Video

litfuse — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:17:03 +0000

Many people have been asking for the video from the launch of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide.

Written by Paul Dalby on 6 June 2009

What do the public servants think?

litfuse — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:36:16 +0000

Steve Collin’s blog post expands on the article I pointed to recently from Lavartus Prodeo on the use of Web 2.0 by politicians and government (Thanks to Penny Sharpe for pointing me to both articles). Steve makes the same point I made in response to the Lavartus Prodeo blog post, which is that the real opportunity for social networking in a democracy is to link the public servants to the public. My particular beef is about making government data available freely online, both in raw form, and interpreted from the view of government. But there is so much more that could be achieved, so much more richness in terms of conservation and interaction. I’d be very keen to hear from people in the public service about their views on this.

Written by Paul Dalby on 26 May 2009

The Clean Energy in Australia

litfuse — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:11:31 +0000

I enjoyed reading this well researched Climate Progress blog post regarding the proposed Clean Energy Bank in the US.

“Last week House Energy and Commerce members approved by 51-6 an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill offered by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to create a clean energy bank . As Greenwire explained, the amendment would “create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Energy Department” that would “provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others” for “energy production, transmission, storage and other areas that could reduce greenhouse gases, diversify energy supplies and save energy.”

At the same time as investment in clean technology increases around the world, investment in oil exploration is falling,which may lead to another oil price spike in the medium term.

“…Oil firms must work doubly hard to replace declining fields and to increase output. Yet the oil industry is short of equipment and manpower, thanks to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, when prices were low. As soon as the world economy starts growing again, the theory runs, demand for oil will once again outstrip the industry’s ability to supply it. In other words, the global recession has only interrupted the “supercycle” of which many analysts used to speak, during which the normal boom-and-bust cycle of oil and other commodities would give way to a protracted period of high prices, as ever-growing demand from emerging markets swallowed everything the extractive industries could produce.”

Where does this leave Australia? Weak and vulnerable in my view. The recent Federal Budget was analysed by Professor Barry Brook from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. There is little cheer in the budget for entrepreneurs in the clean energy game according to Barry’s analysis, particularly in relation to the flawed design and inadequate targets of the CPRS. And Australia is an economy heavily reliant on energy. It’s a big place with relatively few people, extreme climates, and all of our capaital cities will be reliant on energy-hungry desalination for their water supplies. We are rich in coal, but produce only 60% of our oil consumption, so we rely on imported oil and petroleum products. A spike in energy prices will result in pressure on Australia’s economy, and leave us reliant on imported technology to meet renewable energy targets and needs, much like we rely on imported desalination technology.

I would add a note of optimism. The changes to the research and development (R&D) tax credit scheme will “double the level of assistance currently available to small companies and remove the cap on the amount of R&D expenditure subject to a tax credit. Large companies with more than $20 million annual turnover will receive a 40% R&D tax credit instead of tax deductions, which is a 10% net – benefit – one third higher than the current regime. Small companies will receive a 45% R&D tax credit, which amounts to a 15% benefit – twice the current level. Small companies with tax losses will be able to ‘cash out’ their R&D credit when they file their income tax return.”

As a modest investor in commercial R&D myself, this is a great incentive, and one that the Rudd government should be applauded for. Let’s hope it stimulates Australian businesses and entrepreneurs to invest in clean energy. More targeted approaches, such as a national feed in tariff, and a redesigned CPRS system along the lines suggested by Professor Brook would be even better. An increase in oil price would be a much more economically damaging driver of investment by Australian researchers and entrepreneurs in clean energy solutions. A Clean Energy Bank for Australia would be visionary.

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 May 2009

Open government

litfuse — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:44:38 +0000

Was made aware of these websites by tweets from the Whitehouse.

http://www.data.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/

President Obama is the first world leader to really ‘get’ the power of online social networks. These initiatives aim to put government data online (that’s right, ‘other’ people will be able to download it and ‘misinterpret’ it ), and champions more open, accountable and transparent government using the web as a tool.

I’m thinking of emigrating.

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 May 2009

Response to Corey on Biodiversity

litfuse — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:02:11 +0000

Corey Bradshaw from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide in Australia writes about how climate change is getting all the attention while biodiversity conservation does not.

Biologists like Corey should know that the selection pressure for being able to respond to immediate scary, dangerous things has been much more powerful than the selection pressure for being able to see well into the distance and respond to dangers that will effect populations down the track. Our DNA just isn’t up to the task. A few outliers and individuals who get pleasure and/or income directly from biodiversity conservation might really care, but the general huddled masses who vote people in and out of government do not so much. We might donate money or sign petitions, but we rarely vote governments in and out of power based on their biodiversity conservation policies. We also rarely choose NOT to buy something because of that companies impact on biodiversity (except dolphins and tuna – I give you that). This is not true for climate change. It was not an issue globally until there were heat waves in Europe, unseasonal hurricanes in the US and a long, long dry period in Australia. It is a direct impact that got people scared. The fickle populations who could not give two hoots about climate change the year before voted governments out of power because they were soft of climate change, and now you can buy carbon neutral beer! Seriously – a beverage MADE with carbon dioxide!!

It is not government who are the problem. It is us. Our brain is too interested in the immediate problems of how to survive, get sex and not be bored. Genetic engineering is required if you want lots of interest in biodiversity conservation. Or we need the bees to die out to show us the direct impact of no free services.

Written by Paul Dalby on 20 May 2009

Complexity in Landscape Management

litfuse — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:27:28 +0000

Science Seminar Series 3 Wayne Meyer

View more presentations from The environment Institute.

Professor Wayne Meyer from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide, recently presented a new research program in the University of Adelaide – Landscape Science. It includes an excellent summary of the Natural Resource Management (NRM) governance and delivery structures in Australia and South Australia. Wayne makes a strong case for undertaking integrated landscape science (studying how all the bits of the landscape interact) to develop decision support tools that can be used to assess the cumulative impact of decisions by individuals and government on the landscape.

Written by Paul Dalby on 23 April 2009

Scientific neutrality in policy debates

litfuse — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:15:12 +0000

This article from The Australian highlights an important issue about the neutrality of science in policy debates. It can be tempting for scientists to act like politicians and journalists – by spinning all information they come across to reinforce their point of view. I’m not saying Professor Kingsford from ANU necessarily did this by the way – The Australian publishes some woefully biased, anti-science journalism and this could be another example. Nevertheless, on first reading it is not a good look, and perhaps more care should have been taken in the interpretation of the information.

The one strength science has in environmental debates is its neutrality. If scientific input into policy debates becomes based on things other than a dispassionate analysis of data and information, it simply reverts to political debate and loses its special status. It reverts to being just another form of opinion.

We should value, cherish and continue to demand neutrality in scientific interpretation. While the science comunity may be frustrated by the sometimes outrageous twisting of facts, deliberate misinterpretation, or even straight out lying, by journalists and politicians, in the long run, scientists will have the greatest influence in policy debates if they are seen as being scrupulously dispassionate in their scientific interpretation in scientific reports.

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 January 2009

Update on the RIver Murray

litfuse — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:47:47 +0000

Responding to Andrew Wallace blogpost on Technocracynet, below are links to some blogposts and podcasts on River Murray, mostly focused on the lower reaches of the River which are under extreme stress and at risk of permanent ecological damage.

Rebecca Lester on Coorong and Lower Lakes

Acid Mud in the Lower Lakes

Dan Rogers on Aquatic Birds of the Coorong

A Regional Science Forum for the Lower River Murray (over 20 blog posts and podcasts)

Mike Young on ideas for “future proofing” the Murray Darling Basin

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

Giant cuttlefish in Spencers Gulf

litfuse — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:25:09 +0000

This story from ABC news on the giant cuttlefish in Spencers Gulf in South Australia which are at threat from a proposed desalination plant and construction of a deep sea port for shipping iron ore out of South Australia.

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

Great post on collaboration

litfuse — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:50:34 +0000

Shawn from Anecdote has some sage advice on understanding your collaborator before you go into a partnership with them. Given the pressure on researchers in particular to collaborate, spending time assessing whether a potential partner is going to be a good match is important.

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 October 2008