Just how inclusive is ‘Future Earth’?

Aisling Irwin
Consultant news editor, SciDev.Net

---

Future Earth is a vast plan to draw together the big international global change research programmes, and funders, together, to deliver, as ICSU president Yuan Tseh Lee (interviewed here) says, “action-oriented research that society really needs”.

Anyone uneasy at how pratical, inclusive and nimble this behemoth of a collaboration can be (read our latest story on Future Earth here) was invited to a Town Hall session last night, to quiz Future Earth’s behemoth of a transition team.

One worry was how Future Earth would ensure it didn’t just “recycle basic knowledge and not actually be able to generate action”.

The reply was that, as agencies like UNEP are part of the collaboration, it would be forced to stay “action-oriented”.

But most of the questions probed just how inclusive this project, which aims to include just about everyone in setting its research goals and implementing them, will really be. The most upset member of the audience was a biological scientist who felt Future Earth was being driven by the climate and geosciences communities. Emphatically not, said the panel — we have DIVERSITAS, the biodiversity people, on board for a start.

Also: yes – there would be engineers; yes — humanities (there’s an environmental historian on the team); yes – a goal is to recruit and empower scientists from developing countries; yes – social scientist involvement is absolutely critical.

But it’s proving hard, said a member of the transition team, to persuade the last group to join.

There was really only one question that stumped the team: How will you know if you have succeeded?

The team had no answer to this question of metrics, which could be problematic if soliciting funds from outcome-obsessed funders like the UK’s Department of International Development.

But it felt like Future Earth has won the greater argument – that researchers need, urgently, to find out what the outside world needs from them and then pool their frames of reference to deliver it.
This blog post is part of our Planet Under Pressure 2012 coverage — which takes place 26–29 March 2012. To read news and analysis from the conference please visit our website.

The right to travel: a passport for progress

With a passport, science students are a step closer to international collaboration (Credit: Flickr/Nir Sinay)

Getting science students their diplomas proves they are educated, but without a passport they will lack the opportunity to broaden their horizons through international travel and opportunities to work or to continue their education abroad. Indeed, one of the key recommendations coming out of the World Science Forum this week (17-19 November) is the need for more and better international collaboration in science.

So the Fulbright Academy of Science and Technology launched a ‘Passports for progress’ initiative at the forum.

The academy is an international organisation founded by the alumni of the prestigious Fulbright Exchange Program – there are around 300,000 alumni worldwide and several academy delegates attended the forum, including those from Bangladesh, Barbados, Costa Rica, Gaza, Honduras, India, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, United Arab Emirates, and Zimbabwe.

Eric Howard, executive director of the academy, told SciDev.Net the initiative will start will the US students, funding their passports (around US$135 each) but will also be expanded to other countries.

Of course, some western countries have complicated visa requirements but there are other countries they can travel to.

Romain Murenzi, president of TWAS (the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World), told SciDev.Net that there is scope for much more collaboration (and science diplomacy) among developing countries, such as the countries of East Africa.

But overbearing immigration bureaucracy and regulatory hurdles may still hamper free scientific exchange.

One of the key recommendations the forum participants agreed upon to promote international collaboration in science is: “The free co-operation and movement of scientists should be promoted by the elimination of harmful bureaucracy and false regulation and by providing the funds to further international co-operation.”

Mićo Tatalović, deputy news editor, SciDev.Net 

SciDev.Net’s special link to the World Science Forum

The forum will take place at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Parliament (Credit: World Science Forum)

I will be blogging from the World Science Forum in Budapest, Hungary, later this week (17­–19 November). It’s the fifth such forum and this year’s focus will be on the ‘changing landscape of science’.

The forum has a special link to SciDev.Net. It dates back to 1999, when the World Conference on Science was held in Budapest. SciDev.Net originated from a project set up by news staff at the journal Nature (with financial assistance from the Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom) to report on that conference. This was well received, leading to the creation of a permanent website devoted to reporting on, and analysing the role of, science and technology in development in 2001.

And voilà, here we are, ten years later, still going strong and witnessing a change in the global science landscape, with more international collaboration, and emerging new scientific powerhouses, such as Brazil, China and India.

The 5th staging of the forum, taking place this week, will look at the changes in science’s geography, with an emphasis on the emerging powerhouses and science in Africa and the Arabic states. It will also consider changes in scientific topics, and emerging issues, including nanotechnology, genetic engineering, food security, energy consumption, and emerging diseases. It hopes to put a special emphasis on bringing together scientists and politicians and encouraging the dialogue between the two communities.

The forum is organised by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in co-operation with UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the International Council for Science (ICSU), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Mićo Tatalović, deputy news editor, SciDev.Net

Not much sense of the Pacific

While preparing to cover this conference I came across a reference to a report in the PSA’s Pacific Science journal called ‘Developing a sense of the Pacific’ about an early Pacific Science Congress in 1923.

As I left the conference yesterday, my conclusion was that I hadn’t really got a handle on what it means to be a ‘Pacific scientist’. I wonder whether the attendees had either.

Perhaps my definition of Pacific science differs a little from that of the Pacific Science Association.  I would have liked to have seen more representation of the Pacific Island states (while there was money set aside for travel grants for developing country scientists, a Fijian researcher told me that the costs of her attendance at the conference had been significant).

But however you define it, I felt that I didn’t get my fill of Pacific science. It’s understandable that a conference on the topic of global change would involve a global rather than regional look at the issues, but I would have liked to have heard more about the impacts of biodiversity loss, climate change and food insecurity in the region, and what Pacific scientists can do.

The convention centre and the Petronas towers - but where was business? (Credit: Flickr/mollyali)

And for a conference that took place in the shadows of the monuments to business that are the Petronas towers, there was little representation from the private sector. There was much talk of the need to reach out to the media and business but – as far as I could tell – I was the only journalist there and I met just one representative from business.

Researchers can talk to each other about the necessity of working with other stakeholders as much as they like, but if they don’t actually do so, such talk is meaningless. And as I mentioned in a previous post, there was little evidence of lively interdisciplinary debate.

I would have liked to have seen panel discussions where researchers, business representatives and policymakers had debated a topic – surely a good way of opening dialogue and taking up Zakri Abdul Hamid’s challenge for scientists to get more involved in policy.

I’ve said before that the conference is a great opportunity for Pacific scientists to get together, let’s hope that next time they invite some other stakeholders too.

Katherine Nightingale, South-East Asia news editor, SciDev.Net

Intra-disciplinary

Jargon + confusion = little collaboration (Credit: Flickr/wburris)

As a science journalist, I like to think of myself as science literate. Even if I’m not familiar with a topic, I don’t tend to be scared by jargon or stumble over the odd acronym – I know they must mean something and I don’t mind asking (either a person or Google) to find out.

But over the past couple of days I’ve been confronted by powerpoint slides crammed to the edges with graphs and equations, text so miniscule it’s more like glancing at a newspaper from a distance, and sentences dense with acronyms. There’s even been the occasional bit of passive voice.

Now this is a conference for researchers, and no doubt scientists in the same or similar fields haven’t found such language or content to be a barrier – in fact, in many cases, speakers have been complimented on their presentation before I’ve even begun to digest it. The conference is an excellent opportunity for scientists to get together to discuss their areas of research interest, and in some cases communities have been making headway with setting up international collaborations – a great thing to see.

But if I can’t understand something, then doesn’t that mean that a researcher from another field might not be able to? Would a health researcher interested in disaster reduction be inspired by a graph plotting tsunami velocities, for example?

Seems like a barrier to interdisciplinary research to me.

Katherine Nightingale, South-East Asia news editor, SciDev.Net

Fish stocks in Asia-Pacific: pulling back from the tipping point

In his keynote address this morning Kenneth Sherman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warned that fish stocks in the Asia-Pacific region are hanging in the balance – a precarious position for a region where people get 80 per cent of their protein from fish.

Sherman was talking about the world’s 64 large marine ecosystems (LMEs), coastal marine ecosystems that are divided by natural boundaries. Research in 2007 found that all LMEs have been degraded by overfishing, pollution, introduced species and the climate – and degraded ecosystems can’t support the fish higher up the food chain that we humans are so keen on.

A reprieve for fish stocks? (Credit: Flickr/St Stev)

Three LMEs in the Asia-Pacific region – the South China Sea, the Gulf of Thailand and the Indonesian Sea – are at particular risk, said Sherman, but all LMEs in the equatorial region are susceptible to climate change.

As temperatures rise, nutrients in these warmer LMEs are inhibited from mixing, reducing the productivity of the system – and the number of fish it can support, even as fish catches reported to the FAO are increasing.

Reversing this trend will require political will and nations working together as many LMEs lie off the coasts of multiple countries. The Global Environment Fund and World Bank are now funding a programme in which neighbouring countries agree to work together to restore ecosystems. Seventeen such projects are now in place.

One success story is the beginning of rehabilitation to a ‘dead zone’ in the Yellow Sea. China and Korea have agreed to reduce fishing and are replacing the lost protein with ‘integrated multitrophic mariculture’, a system in which kelp, abalone, scallops and sea cucumbers are grown in a layered pot, with nutrients trickling down from one to another.  The system also sequesters carbon and improves water quality.

A collaboration in the Coral Triangle between Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines is also being established.

So all is not lost, says Sherman. “We probably were in a downward spiral but we’re in not in one anymore.”

Katherine Nightingale, South-East Asia news editor, SciDev.Net

TWAS comes to India

Welcome to the blog from the 21^st General Meeting of the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS), in Hyderabad, India.

So is this yet another developing countries’ meeting on their science struggles? Not exactly. The mood is upbeat, as several developing countries that have witnessed enormous changes in science since TWAS held its first meeting in Trieste in 1985 can testify.

Take Hyderabad, for example. A somewhat sedate city when TWAS was founded over two decades ago, Hyderabad today is host to cutting-edge biology institutes such as the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics; and a global biotechnology and information technology hub. Brazil, China, Rwanda and South Africa have similar success stories to tell.

TWAS meetings are changing too.

Their initial major goals were to provide a forum where scientists from the developing world could discuss critical issues of common concern and showcase their science, and to create a bridge between scientists and science policymakers.

 

TWAS's 1st international conference on 'South-South and South-North Cooperation in Sciences' (5-10 July 1985)

 

The second TWAS meeting was held in Beijing, with 150 participants from 50 countries. The Beijing meeting featured in Nature as one of a handful of scientific meetings in the second half of the 20th century that had a significant impact on scientific discourse.

TWAS 2010 will have 350 participants from 54 countries. The emphasis is shifting to strengthening the research–policy interface, expanding South-South collaboration and on the work of young scientists. There is growing concern, too, that discussions need to focus more on countries and scientists that have yet to fully participate in the growing scientific capabilities of developing countries.

India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh will open the meeting, followed by an Africa–India ministerial round table. Other key developing countries’ concerns on the agenda include tuberculosis, typhoid vaccine and zinc deficiency. And there is other exciting science stuff — I personally like the sound of munching black holes (yummy!) and growing galaxies.

SciDev.Net blog will be updating you daily,  so please watch this space.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

GCARD soundbites: day 4

The final day of GCARD was a lively one, with promises of concrete change coupled with sober reminders of the task that lies ahead. We heard from a range of stakeholders, all of them united by their desire to do things differently – and put this desire into action. Here’s day 4 in quotes:

“A number of barriers have prevented us from realising agricultural research for development’s potential.” Kofi Annan, former UN secretary-general

“Are we concentrating [our] efforts on the right crops and regions?” Participants from the thematic area 8 discussion

”We should be … ashamed that we haven’t reduced hunger and poverty in the world.” Monty Jones, incoming GFAR chair

“Gender is non-negotiable.” Mary Njenga, Kenyan researcher

“[The process] ‘I research – you transfer – they adopt’ is no longer applicable.” Brazilian delegate

“Put some lights and targets on the map which will indicate the road.” Participants from the ‘Thinking forward’ session

“When it comes to a tough job, they turn to a woman.” Uma Lele, GCARD global author

“The role of partnerships has been highlighted in a way it hasn’t been before.” Carlos Perez del Castillo, chair of CGIAR’s Consortium Board

“One third of the human race are smallholder farmers.” Kathy Sierra, chair of CGIAR fund council

“We are starting a new era of agricultural research for development and all of you need to own it.” Adel El-Beltagy, outgoing GFAR chair

“Action, action, action!” Uma Lele

Naomi Antony
Assistant news editor, SciDev.Net

A bull named Research

Hands up who views farmers as scientists? Despite our best efforts, most of us still associate ‘science’ with white coats, labs and passive, labyrinthine prose. And yet some farmers practice science. They develop experimental and observational techniques.

So said Louise Fortmann – a rural sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley – at the GCARD session ‘Open science’, which sought to showcase how agricultural and wider science can impact development.

“[Farmers] learn about soils by working with the same soils year after year,” said Fortmann. “They are civil scientists.”

Whether or not you agree with her, it was one of the few times – from my perspective at least – a speaker had sincerely placed farmers on an equal footing with researchers. Shame then, that the hall was so empty – this was what “experts” and participants alike needed to hear instead of rhetorical posturing.

“We need to get out of the lab, off the research station and into the field, and start talking to farmers in their own language,” Fortmann said. “I hope we can dispense with the silly and dangerous dichotomy between science and development.”

She made a plea to researchers. “[You] need to be humble and collaborate with local experts, treating them not as data sources but as colleagues with whom new research and knowledge will be created.”

Fortmann told the charming story of Mama Esther Mudoma, an African farmer who worked with CIAT scientist Robin Buruchara to develop a variety of bean resistant to root rot. Mudoma bought a bull with the money she made from selling the beans to neighbouring villages, and named him Research. “Why Research?” Buruchara asked.

“You came here, we did research together.”

Naomi Antony
Assistant news editor, SciDev.Net

Mega-programme whistle-stop tour

GCARD (credit: GCARD)

The CGIAR presented a draft version of its long-awaited mega-programmes, or thematic areas of work (TAWs) as they’re now being called, to GCARD this morning.

There are 8 TAWs and 3 ‘cross-cutting platforms’ that will be integral to all programmes—but the final numbers of both these may change.

TAW1: Agricultural systems for the poor and vulnerable

This will focus on ‘poverty hotspots’, looking at sustainable agriculture and food security, among other things. TAW1 is expected to improve the lives of more than 250 million poor people, with production increases of at least 10% over 10 years.

TAW2: Enabling agricultural incomes for the poor

The policies, institutions and markets required to boost rural incomes. TAW2 is expected to reduce the cost of taking goods to market by at least 20%.

TAW3: Sustainable crop increases for global food security

This will research options for increasing productivity of the three main cereal crops including identifying genes, accelerating the development of new varieties, improving crop management and supporting pro-poor policies.  CGIAR estimates it will affect three billion people.

Gender is one of the cross-cutting platforms (credit: USAID)

TAW4: Agriculture, nutrition and health

This is expected to reduce malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and foodborne disease.

TAW5: Water, soils and ecosystems

This is expected to improve access to water for productive purposes for 200 million people within 20 years; boost ecosystem resilience and reverse trends of water degradation.

TAW6: Forests and trees

This includes objectives such as harnessing forest ecosystem services for the poor. TAW6 should help reduce deforestation by 10% by 2030; reduce carbon emissions and increase the planting of tree genetic resources on 50,000 square kilometres of agricultural and degraded lands by 2030.

TAW7: Climate change and agriculture

This  is expected to produce science-based vulnerability assessments and lead to better national and global policies for accessing and using adaptation and mitigation technologies.

TAW8: Mobilising agricultural biodiversity for food security and resilience

Research will include creating a broader range of tools in molecular characterisation and boosting the use of genetic diversity, among others. TAW8 is expected to increase agricultural productivity, broaden the coverage of gene collections and safeguard biodiversity.

CGIAR is also proposing three ‘cross-cutting platforms’ in:

1. gender in agriculture

2. capacity strengthening to promote learning and knowledge sharing; and

3. Strategic planning and intelligence

Sian Lewis
Commisioning editor, SciDev.Net