2020 GCSP Stories and Events

The 2020 global change scholars were fortunate enough to have Professor Brian Head from the Centre for Policy futures. In this seminar, the scholars delved into how to analyse, and attack complex “wicked” problems.

Strategies to attack these issues involve proper analysis of the following aspects

1. The nature of the problem
2. Urgency
3. Causality
4. Roles and responsibilities
5. Choosing and implementing solutions.

Many solutions to these complex issues require specialised expertise from academia, however problems arise with the so-called “gap” between academic researchers and policy makers. This gap is created by many organisational and cultural factors such as

1. Professional cultures in each environment
2. How each field incentivises workers eg. Publications in high-impact journals vs. necessary observable outcomes in business and politics
3. Timeframes in each field eg. Scientific time-frames are often significantly slower, limiting the amount of expertise available to solve urgent problems
4. Limited incentives for interaction between the sectors

However, narrowing/eliminating the gap between these sectors will go a long way in solving complex global problems.

“Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.” Joseph Pulitzer

This quote summarises the main goal of Professor Peter Greste’s presentation, Science Communication - Telling stories of science to ordinary mortals, which happened on October 15th. 

In the first part of the seminar, Greste got us thinking how to tell a story and what tools to use to better communicate our research. He mentioned that communication is like carpentry, not all of us have the talent but we can be taught how to do it and practice until we arrange details in an understandable way that is at the same time compelling and engaging.

He also showed the video entitled “Kung Fu Mantis Vs Jumping Spider | Life Story | BBC”, where a story is told in a very engaging way and asked us to brainstorm around what were the main characteristics of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=orchid+mantis+BBC

When you tell a story, it doesn't need to be overloaded with information, and this is also valid for science manuscripts. When jargons from research are used, less people will be able to read your work and you are not going to reach as many people as you would by focusing only on what matters for your story.

Great also taught us about the 7 different archetypes used when someone is writing a story. They represent different structures and can be tragedy, comedy, the quest, rags to riches, voyage and return overcoming the monster and rebirth. He also talked about how valuable it is to show real case-studies while writing and how to write an interesting introduction. According to him, after you look at your story, “if it doesn't feel right, it isn't”.

He also gave us two documents (How hybrids have upturned evolutionary theory versus Hybridization increases population variation during adaptive radiation), each one written in a different way to show how to improve our stories by using empathy towards the main character, active voice instead of passive voice, and write in a way that people with different backgrounds will understand.

The second part of the presentation was related to social media and Greste’s story. He mentioned the internet research agency, which is a Russian company engaged in online influence operations on behalf of Russian business and political interests. Ultimately, he mentioned the different types of mis/disinformation and how regulations might stop some fake news to be posted in social media.

Seminar 7(B) was led by Dr. Britta Denise Hardesty, a renowned research scientist with CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, based in Hobart Tasmania. She specializes in understanding marine debris, plastic pollution in particular. Dr. Anya Phelan, the academic coordinator of the GCSP Program, led the previous talk on plastic pollution (in Indonesia) on September 17 - giving us an excellent an eye-opening understanding into the depth and complexities of the plastic problem.

We had an incredible talk on the reality of the world's plastic problem,from the view of an optimist. The price to pay for plastic use, bans across the world on single use plastic and steps taken by countries in this direction. Dr. Hardesty's optimistic view was truly refreshing and full of hope. 

She also emphasized on our impact as PhD students and GC Scholars and the importance of creating research goals that align with the challenges faced by the world today - giving more depth and meaning to our work. 

We thank Dr. Britta Denise Hardesty and Dr. Anya Phelan for their enlightening and encpuraging words - was a true privilege to get to see what passion and perseverance towards our goals is capable of achieving. 

This week, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg gave an overview of his research revolving around how climate change has impacted the health of coral reefs across the world and how his career has evolved to where he has become a prominent researcher in the space of climate science.

He started his career as a researcher interested at examining ocean ecosystems, but noticed significant change in certain species over the 1980s and 1990s which lead to his involvement in researching how climate change has impacted ocean systems.

Around 500 million people are directly supported by coral reefs around the world and the destruction of reefs would have a severe impact on their livelihood through reduction in food availability and tourism.

It was startling to see how the predicted increase in coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef from the 1990s had started to accelerate in the past five years – as modelled by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg decades earlier. 

Even more stark was the fact that at 1.5 °C of global warming, 70-90 % of the world’s corals will be dead by 2100, with over 99% dead with 2 °C of warming, while the current commitments to curb emissions put the world on a track to warm by 3-4 °C.

However, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg says this does not mean that efforts to protect the oceans should be abandoned. In the event that warming is not as extreme as current trajectories suggest, he looks at this as an opportunity to ensure the 10% remaining coral have the best chance at survival. By identifying where the least exposed reefs are through climate and ocean modelling, it is possible to introduce measures to better ensure their survival. 

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg closed by talking about some of his latest work in his involvement with creating an analysis for ocean-based climate action areas to fight against climate change. These included five areas to address and their associated impacts which would assist with reducing the annual net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by 21%. The areas were;

• Ocean-based renewable energy
• Ocean-based transport
• Coastal and marine ecosystems
• Fisheries, aquaculture and dietary shifts
• Carbon storage in the seabed

The suggested actions in each of these areas can be viewed in the full report at https://www.oceanpanel.org/climate.

As the first wave of COVID-19 breached the shores of Australia, governments went into overdrive trying to balance the health and safety needs of the community, while also unrolling initiatives to keep businesses afloat.

The situation gave birth to COVID Safe plans – ensuring companies had thoroughly considered all touch points for customers and employees, and implemented strategies to the best interest of the community and their own economic survival.

The global response to the coronavirus pandemic raises a key point – business strategies play an important role in avoiding serious global issues that are dangerously escalating.

According to UQ Business School sustainability researcher, Dr Anna Phelan, who recently completed an ocean plastic study in Indonesia, a coordinated effort towards a circular economy is urgently needed to ensure that Australia’s closest neighbours do not drown in a sea of plastic.

“A Plastic Stewardship Plan, if structured into a business like a Covid Safe plan, could help businesses improve resource efficiency, cut costs, support sustainable waste management and improve the resilience of local supply chains,” says Anna.

Seeded by the UQ Global Change Institute, and in collaboration with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Anna’s most recent research confirms the urgency of reducing single-use plastic in global supply chains and examines plastic pollution through the eyes of the local people.

The study examined the use, disposal and local consequences of single-use plastics in remote island communities in two archipelagos of South Sulawesi, Eastern Indonesia.

“The crisis facing the world’s oceans from plastics is well documented, yet there is little knowledge of the perspectives and experiences of coastal and remote communities shouldering the impacts of ocean plastic,” Anna explains.

The research identified a complex set of factors contributing to extensive plastic leakage into the marine environment and demonstrated that plastic waste was outpacing mitigation efforts.

“The findings highlight the integrated role producers and manufacturers can play, and the downside of attributing the blame on communities in emerging economies,” says Anna.

“Remote communities simply cannot recycle their way out of this complex global environmental problem. Regions with minimal waste infrastructure require circular systems and responsible supply chains with non-plastic alternatives.”

More than just a recycling problem

Previous research identified that millions of tonnes of plastic waste leaks out of the worldwide consumer market and into the ocean each year, and that ineffectively managed plastic waste generated in coastal regions is most at risk of entering the marine environment.

This is because the rising standard of living in emerging economies is expanding the fast-moving consumer goods sector, and waste management infrastructure cannot keep up.

“At the household level, a typical Indonesian village generates about 4000 kilograms of rubbish per week, with plastic waste increasingly growing in proportion,” says Anna.

“Our study discovered that on average, 2000 kilograms of rubbish per week may leak into the ocean just from one village.”

“In Indonesia alone, there are thousands of similar coastal communities struggling to manage their own household waste, as well as vast quantities of plastic waste brought in on ocean currents.”

Globally, recycling rates for plastic are low, with only an estimated 14 per cent of plastic packaging collected for recycling. Furthermore, exports of recyclable materials from developed countries results in a significant transfer of waste pollution.

A plastic literacy survey conducted as part of the study showed that 48 per cent of respondents said they frequently burned their waste, exposing themselves to dangerous fumes.

“There is little the coastal communities can do to manage plastic waste effectively unless they’re presented with better choice architecture, both on the supply side and in disposal options,” Anna cautions.

Responsibility on manufacturers and business to lead a change

“Producers and manufacturers can no longer focus only on low-cost packaged products without taking responsibility for the outcomes.”

In New Zealand recently, a new government policy announced the burden of waste management would be shifted from communities and councils back onto those who manufacture the products. It targeted businesses producing harmful products such as tyres, plastic packaging and electronics.

Those businesses will work with the New Zealand government to create ways to recycle, dispose of or repurpose their own products. For example, there may be a levy applied to the product, waste pick-ups arranged, or customers could drop products back to the store.

A coordinated policy between government and businesses, striving for innovative solutions grounded in systems thinking could be a viable answer, Anna believes.

 “Like our research, this takes a systems-based approach, encouraging businesses to think about the design of their operation and business strategies, which government could help support.”

Transitioning to a circular economy

A Plastic Stewardship Plan can help businesses reduce single-use plastic and incorporate circular economy principals.

The circular economy model moves away from the linear take-make-waste approach to one that designs out waste and pollution, keeps products and materials in use, and regenerates natural systems.

This economic model helps improve resource efficiency, cut costs, support sustainable waste management and improve the resilience of local supply chains.

According to the World Economic Forum, New Plastics Economy, 95 per cent of the material value from plastic packaging – equating to US$80-120 billion annually – is lost to the economy after a short first use.

One example of a circular economy business in play is a partnership between Timberland and Omni United, a tyre manufacturer and distributor, to produce footwear using recycled tires. Once the OImni tyres have reached the end of their product life, they are shipped to a recycling facility and turned into crumb rubber. This crumb rubber is processed into sheet rubber for the outsoles of Timberland shoes.

"Building a circular economy approach into a Plastic Stewardship Plan for businesses is a game-changer, as it doesn’t just increase environmental sustainability, it takes a future-focused approach to ensure economic sustainability too,” says Anna.

Reference

Phelan, A. (2020, October 6). Avoiding a different kind of pandemic – why businesses need a Plastic Stewardship Plan. Momentum, The Business School Magazine. https://stories.uq.edu.au/business/2020/plastic-stewardship-plan/index.html

This week, the Global Change Scholar team were fortunate enough to listen to a spirited presentation on crop science by Prof Ian Godwin. Ian’s work focuses on the use of biotechnological tools for crop improvement, and his presentation explored the global challenges stemming from the singular problem of how we are to effectively feed the world’s growing population.

What was discussed?

Ian is a proponent of widening the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and, insodoing, dispelling some of the myth and misinformation that has hampered the global uptake of genetically modified (GM) crops. Prince Charles, for one, has warned that the cultivation of GM crops is the biggest environmental disaster of all time, and the Australian Organic organisation has baulked at certifying GM crops as organic, in part, because there are no long-term studies on human health, or so they claim.

However, in comprehensive, meta-analytic research from Goettingen University, researchers have shown that the adoption of GM technology has:

• Reduced pesticide use by 37%
• Increased crop yield by 22%
• Increased farmer profits by 68%.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, research has shown that the yield and profit gains through the cultivation of GM crops are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

So, with the help of his pioneering research in the use of GM and gene edited techniques, Ian emphasised to us that the sustainable production of crops into the future will depend on our willingness to grow and consume GM food.

“There’s no point curing mice. They’re not even grateful.” This quote, by Ian Frazer on the development of the Gardasil vaccine, captures the essence of Associate Professor Tim Kastelle’s presentation to the Global Change Scholars: that while research that stays in the lab may be interesting to the researcher, the real impact of research comes from bringing it to the world. In Kastelle’s presentation, he applied his decade plus of research on innovation processes to provide the Scholars with best-practice methods to do just that, and to do it successfully.

According to Kastelle, there are three parts of innovation: new ideas, making them real, and unlocking value. Innovation most often falls over because most new ideas fail to create value—and this happens because researchers fail to validate the value of their ideas in advance of developing them.

So how do we, as researchers, correct for this problem? Kastelle’s ON Prime program has some evidence-based answers for startups. There are three components to this program: a business model canvas, customer development, and agile engineering. And while these may be targeted towards startups, they are just as relevant for us as PhD researchers looking to translate what we do at the university to positive impact in the world. For us, this might look like applying a business model canvas, whether our desired impact is to profit off a successful idea, or to influence policymaking, or to improve the lives of others in any type of way. Our customer development might look like interviewing the target audience for our research, and really understanding the nature of the problems that they face. And finally, agile engineering is essentially rapid prototyping: trying our ideas out with our target audience at various stages of development to see if they serve their end user. 

Ultimately, innovation is a non-linear process, and we can’t wait until we feel our research within the university setting is finished before bringing our ideas to the world. We must incorporate innovation at each and every point of our research process in order to realise the real impacts in the world that we seek to achieve. 

On September 1^st the UQ Global Change Institute Director, Professor Rachel Parker, gave an inspiring presentation on The Role of University Research in Driving Global Change. Their talk critically evaluated the role that universities have had in society and our economy to date, ignited discussion around the future of the role that universities play and finished up with some advice for us, budding young PhD students. Herein, I will summarise the talk and the group discussions that ensued.

The role of universities has changed significantly since The University of Sydney, Australia’s first university, was founded in 1851. Teaching and education was the initial focus of universities and later it shifted to research. Fast forward to the past 30 years or so, and role of a university is focused on being a driver of economic growth with a large emphasis on industry impact. In the knowledge economy of today [1], the focus tends to be on innovation and developing new technologies for an improved world rather than on understanding fundamental theories.

University innovation hybrids have and will continue to strengthen the innovation systems that fuel the economy drive. These include science parks, start-up incubators and university-industry research collaborations and some examples which drove recent IT and biotech revolutions include GPS, the internet, touchscreens, Bi-Pharmaceutical inventions, Apple’s Siri, mobile phones, Google Earth, Google Translate and Google Search.

The history of university roles and outputs led into two important points:

• A large part of academic research today is focused on societal impact, yet research is largely measured by research impact and citation metrics, and
• The aforementioned IT and biotech revolutions were largely popularised by the industries which distributed them rather than the under recognised, government funded, university research which underpinned them. To dig further into tracing the history of research and innovation that has led to the technology of today, see the works of Mariana Mazzucato [2].

The modern innovations driving the growth in our world have promised great future. Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, has said that artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechology, biotechnology, material science, quantum computing, additive manufacturing, materials engineering and synthetic biology will:

• “Raise income levels and improve the quality of life for populations around the world.”

• “Foster a society which is classless and ageless” and
• Create a “new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of identity.”

But will this utopian future eventuate? And are we delivering on these promises?

The US economist, Robert Gordon once said: “Technological advances of the ‘special century’ (1887-1970) increased productivity, facilitated reductions in the hours of work, increased standards of living and extended life expectancy “at a pace never been before in human history.””

In light of this, Professor Parker raised two questions: Is progress stagnating? And is research and innovation focusing on the right questions? Professor Parker believes that there is a global drive for university research to take a more challenge based, transdisciplinary and impact focus to research. Further, we should be focusing on the ever more pressing global challenges including inequality, poverty, climate change, food and water insecurity, waste, collapse of ecosystems, global pollution, pandemics and failures in good governance.

The first step in this direction is to start considering social innovation alongside technological innovation. To date much of innovation that drives the world is technological. When it comes to these global challenges, which are still waiting to get their piece of the current innovation boom, we need to realise that science and technology are not always the right, let alone, only solutions.

Approaching research and challenges with a transdisciplinary approach and considering them from both technological and sociological viewpoints will be the key to making progress on large-scale global challenges and the future of research.

Professor Parker is passionate about the impact and context social science can provide to the technology and natural science fields of research. They encourage one to question:

1. Are we focusing on fixing the right problems? And,
2. How do we decide which problems to focus on?

Parker believes that better university-industry collaborations are not the answer to such questions.

On applying this big picture thinking to our own research, Professor Parker left us with three question:

1. What is the global change to which your research will contribute to?
2. What are the missing parts? Is there another discipline or point of view that you should consider? And if so,
3. How can you make that happen?

References / Further Reading

1. Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30, 199-220.
2. https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/

This week the GCI Global Scholars were treated to a challenging and engaging presentation from ecology conservationist, Professor Martine Maron.

What was discussed:

Biodiversity conservation in particularly human-dominated landscapes is a multifaceted but centrally important global problem, particularly if we are to maintain the health of the environment that supports human life and wellbeing.

However, existing national conservation laws have proven to be insufficient for the task of adequately protecting biodiversity in Australia. And, in some cases, have been shown to have had a counterintuitively negative impact on biodiversity due to the myriad of conceptual flaws besetting the current iteration of biodiversity offsetting policy.

After large-scale review, governmental agencies have been slow to amend policy if, indeed, any such attempts have been made at all.

The question then is “how can we set clearer and more efficacious environmental standards for biodiversity conservation?”

Martine and her team argue that we need to reframe the current “no net loss” paradigm away from ‘relative losses’ and towards a focus on net loss prevention in absolute terms. We need, therefore, to establish biodiversity conservation targets which ensure that the biodiversity of a given area is no worse off after development than if that development had not occurred in the first place.

The question then becomes “how do we get this done?”

For Martine and her colleagues, the answer lies firstly in understanding the mechanisms that drive species loss from fragmented or degraded landscapes, and then improving offset policy through the development of defensible and transparent systems for accounting for conservation gains and losses.

The Global Change Scholars had the privilege of hearing from Prof. Heather Zwicker; the executive Dean from the faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

What we discussed:

The University of Queensland graduate school survey showed only 36% of HDR students responded to the survey examining how COVID-19 has impacted their HDR studies- overrepresented by international students (8%), and students holding UQ scholarships (15%).

Preliminary findings from the survey suggest that the predominant challenges facing HDR students is not access to funding, but instead challenges surrounding the use of funding, e.g. resource and equipment access. Sense of connectedness and community amongst students was lost as people were made to quarantine, with half of all surveyed students feeling a loss of connection to peers, and a third feeling isolated and lacking support. Not surprisingly, rates of mental strain increased as students continued with study under extremely uncertain circumstances.

Silver linings from quarantine and exponential online opportunities have resulted in increased availability of resources to minorities; people with disabilities are more easily gaining access to online conferences, and woman caregivers are easily able to take zoom meetings at home. Interestingly, COVID-19’s effects have had gendered disparities; woman disproportionately makes up teaching staff and early career researchers at higher education institutions. The strain of converting teaching modules to online formats has significantly impacted woman’s abilities to keep up with pre-COVID19 research outputs, and early career researcher output has also been stunted through the pandemic.

Questions posed to the 2020 global change scholars cohort: Collaboratively, how could your research positively impact the post-COVID world?

Discussions/ideas for collaborative research:

• Levels of governance and implications for improving green/energy/food/waste for local communities
• Public perception of science; race to the COVID vaccine, how the public understands the scientific process inextricably linked to public trust in vaccines
• Antimicrobial resistance; increased use of sanitisation during the global pandemic will increase antibiotic resistance
• Difficulty with collaborating between interdisciplinary specialities. More collaboration opportunities for graduate students.

Problems with hyper-specialisation in university culture; should universities be catered more for problem-solving with interdisciplinary teams put together for specific issues, rather than niche departments?

Everyone had a great time on Zoom as Mr Santow gave an exceptional​ talk about Human Rights & Artificial Intelligence.

Here's what we have learnt and discussed: 

The Challenge of Modern Surveillance

• The Australian Human Rights Commission came to look at a project on technology for the following reasons:
  • Whilst there are benefits of AI and machine learning that can lead to economic development and make communities more inclusive, insufficient attention is being given to the risks and harms which are very serious
• Issues with AI - Machine Learning & Image Recognition:
  • Positive example: Anna Ridler's tulip artwork (photo 1)
  • Machine works from the truth you input into the database – faulty input results in errors as machine cannot 'think' for itself. High degree of subjectivity during the process of labelling (opinions of those who have labelled within data input of the machine learning process will be carried through into output) 
  • Facial recognition - 1 to 1 recognition (not so controversial)
  • 1 to many facial recognition (controversial) e.g. Social Credit Scheme in China (photo 2)
  • Used increasingly in policing/law enforcement within Western countries. E.g. London Metro Police have been trialling use to identify criminals yielding large number of false positive results (98% inaccurate). Errors in the system were identified and corrected in due course yet human rights violations can occur in that time. London police are increasing the use of facial recognition. 
  • Gender shades research. Technology fairly accurate for white/middle-aged men BUT very inaccurate in people that didn’t meant that description e.g dark skinned women
  • The Next Frontier? – labels for how attractive someone is, how trust-worthy they are – machine learns from these subjective views. Biometric Mirror project. Interest in getting this information yet rubbish science behind it
  • Regulation: Law & Ethics 
    • Need to be applying law to new technologies more rigorously  
    • Aust. Human Rights Commission discussion paper – calling for protections to community when used in high stakes areas e.g. policing (call for moratorium on facial recognition) – final report to be released end of 2020
•