Boycotting Israeli academics, or boycotting academic freedom?

Written by Gregory Rose, Professor of Law at the University of Wollongong.

Continued boycotts of Israeli academics pose a threat to the very freedoms that academics hold dear. AAP/Joe Castro

On Wednesday last week, the Student Representative Council at the University of Sydney adopted a motion to boycott Israeli academics. The motion called specifically for the University to cut its current research ties with the Technion, Israel’s leading higher education technology institute, and supported the general academic boycott of Israel called for by the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS).

That the boycott suppresses academic freedom is clear but less obvious is that it does not promote international peace and that it is fundamentally racist. Earlier this year, The Conversation published an argument in defence of the boycott by the CPACS’ Paul Dulffill, and the issue deserves to have both sides discussed.

What is the launching of a universal boycott of Israel intended to achieve? The purported reason given by CPACS – and supported by the SRC – is that because Israeli academics reside in a country alleged to have breached international law, those smarting academics will supposedly turn around Israeli foreign and security policy.

In reality, Australian academics have minimal influence on this country’s foreign policy, and even less in Israel where national security concerns predominate. Of course, Israeli academics facing attack tend to fight back like the rest of us when pushed against the wall. The academic boycott will never be effective in its supposed objective of changing Israeli policies.

Nevertheless, Students for Palestine and CPACS supporters of the boycott might still assert that it has secondary value in Australia, perhaps because the boycott raises academic awareness here, which might percolate through to Australian foreign policy makers. So, if an implicit objective is to generate Australian antagonism, a local boycott targeting Israeli academics might supposedly influence Australian foreign policy. However, there is no evidence that this symbolic activism at the University of Sydney will influence government or swing votes in the ballot box.

On their own avowal, the members of both the University of Sydney SRC and CPACS are active in Palestine solidarity campaigns and have picked a side in an international dispute – Dulfill says that the CPACS “can hardly be expected to be neutral or disinterested”. That conflict is complex and their choice is morally questionable, but they wish to push their interests on others.

Advocacy for the university to officially engage in a boycott and to propose that it be adhered to by academics is intellectual totalitarianism, anathema to respectable universities which resist political pressure to adopt partisan policies or repress academic research. Within a learning environment the freedom to doubt, to analyse and to form and articulate an independent perspective is fundamental and the essential quality of a university.

Choosing official sides between competing nationalities, religions and races politicises a campus, alienates members of faculty staff and is toxic to faculty collegiality. Jews would be alienated but not only them. It is reminiscent of ideological purges within the Soviet and Chinese communist parties.

Let’s put this in comparative perspective: should the University of Sydney cease all collaborative research with Indonesian institutes until the Papuan self-determination movement is satisfied? What about publishing official Sydney boycott manifestos on the democratic failures in China, Fiji, Malaysia and Singapore? If the problem is military applications of technology, then it must also boycott the ANU, the universities of NSW, Wollongong, and the list goes on.

Should the University of Sydney itself be boycotted if it does not officially adopt a boycott of Israel? Should University of Sydney academics who do not individually endorse an official boycott be penalised?

It has been truthlessly suggested that the academic boycott does not affect individual academics and that the Palestine Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) guidelines are clear on this. To the contrary, the PACBI guidelines do not meaningfully distinguish between Israeli academics and representatives of their institutions. Normally, any academic engaged in an international collaboration is assumed to informally represent his/her own institution. For example, an outstanding Australian-Israeli biomathematics colleague was told by a science journal that it could not publish him because of his Tel Aviv University address.

Academics are members of a social sector who typically tend to be public intellectuals and advocate for individual freedoms, liberal values and social justice. Professor Dan Avnon of the Hebrew University, who was not allowed by the Sydney CPACS to spend part of his sabbatical there, had sought to undertake individual academic work in Arab-Jewish peace studies. Shunning people who typically reach out for peaceful dialogue is an irony all can see.

Of course, the threat to academic freedom would be limited if this is the only boycott. Then, ambivalent University of Sydney staff might feel some relief: the boycott would simply be a symbolic demonstration of the University’s claim of a moral high ground. Just the Jewish state alone and no more. Sad, that is.

Australian suppression of peaceful engagement with Israeli academics could make sense only because its objective has nothing to do with peace. The long-war objective of the academic boycott is the same as the trade and diplomatic boycotts that Arab states have imposed on Israel since its inception 65 years ago.

The Friends of Palestine approach within the SRC and CPACS entails denial of any Jewish state. They are warriors in the conflict, adding fuel to its fire. There could be no more elegant demonstration for why Jews need their own country.

Originally posted on the Conversation.

 

Collaborate or Commiserate…

By Prof. Gordon Wallace
ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES)
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

Also published in ‘Chemistry in Australia’  
Follow Gordon on Twitter  – @GordonGWallace

The ability to build effective collaborative research activities is no longer a secondary skill for scientists. It is a skill critical to the development of a successful career. Without a demonstrated capacity to deliver on projects that mandate collaboration, a competitive position cannot be sustained.

The importance of collaboration in delivering efficient, effective and high impact advances in research and innovation is well documented. See for example the position paper entitled “Australian Science in a Changing World: Innovation requires Global Engagement” published by the Australian Academy of Science in 2011.

A scant search of the research literature also shows numerous studies highlighting that collaboration is essential (plug – collaboration, research and innovation into your search engine). A simple survey of high profile publications shows multiple authors from different backgrounds and research organisations are usually involved.

At a local level, on a daily basis, it is obvious that the complex global research challenges we face cannot be effectively confronted by individuals, indeed not even by a group of individuals, from a single discipline.

In our Centre of Excellence (ACES) the pursuit of more efficient energy conversion systems using biomimicry calls on the talents of Biologists, Chemists and Chemical Engineers, Materials Scientists / Engineers to design and synthesis new material structures and Mechanical Engineers who can build fabrication equipment to assemble these in appropriate configurations. Our quest to build next generation Medical Bionic Platforms also calls on these skills; in addition to the input needed in the areas of physiology, electronic engineering and the direction of clinicians who will use the outcomes. This collection of highly-talented individuals, technically gifted in their chosen fields, and with interpersonal skills that have enabled effective collaboration, have achieved advances that would not have been possible individually.

The interpersonal skills essential for collaborative success include:

-       The ability to listen.  Respect for the talents of others and an innate thirst for knowledge usually result in an individual who can listen and acquire information from a completely different discipline.

-       The ability to clearly articulate complex phenomena in simple terms. A detailed knowledge of your own field is needed if you are to be able to break the message down into digestible chunks.

-       The ability to be creative with the wide range of communication tools now available to help listening and articulating.

-       The ability to help build a rapport with individuals and with the team that facilitates the collaborative process.

-       The highest level of integrity and patience. The ability to put the collaboration and longer term benefits for all ahead of short-term benefits for the individual.

We do have a choice. We can either develop such interpersonal skills and establish ourselves in an effective integrated team of high calibre researchers and collaborate – or commiserate with those that thought collaboration was not necessary!

Ten steps to building effective research collaborations.

1. Establish the Vision.
2. Identify the skills needed to take the Vision forward.
3. Take the Vision “to the streets” – make sure the Vision is embedded in and promoted through every opportunity. Get others excited !!
4. Bring others to the Vision – organise symposia, workshops, invited talks. Tap into existing collaborative networks such as Centres of Excellence, Co-operative Research Centres, Australian Nanotechnology network, or the many others you will find relevant to your field of expertise. As a PhD student start to build links – with other researchers. Make the most of visiting experts to your labs. Get prepared and be enthusiastic. Every visitor is a prospective collaborator at some point  in your career.
5. Refine the Vision as needed – the first idea is unlikely to be the best. If it finds itself in the wrong place at the wrong time it is easier to refine the idea than manipulate these physical realities.
6. Recognise Collaborative Opportunities. It is more than just a collection of appropriate skills that makes collaborations work. You need to identify and align yourself with like-minded individuals. If it doesn’t feel right almost immediately then in my experience it is probably not going to work. Ninety nine per cent of the time you can gauge the likelihood of collaborative success very quickly (two beers and a packet of Nobby’s Nuts should do it).
7. Once identified, treat the relationship as precious. Identify a short-term opportunity to get some runs on the board, and build on that. If you can produce an output that has required collaborative planning, execution and delivery, you are more ready to seek external investment in the partnership.
8. Build the collaboration – patience, integrity and enthusiasm will be required. Building the collaboration requires resources and practical support. You need to ensure that resources can be kicked-in to breathe life into the collaboration. Those resources are usually more than just cash; it is the dynamic supportive environment that fosters real collaboration.
9. Acknowledge collaborators – celebrate Success! Researchers are not good at celebrating success because we always want to make it better. Celebrate significant results together Celebrate that joint publication !!
10. Would be great to hear your ideas.

So we have discussed why and suggested how, but where ?

Not all organisations are adept at facilitating collaborative research. So if you are choosing where to work – chose carefully.

While there is no doubt that these skills will make individuals more attractive to prospective employers, the collaborative research environment to be supplied and resourced by the employing organisation is also critical to success.

So be prepared for the  “do you have any questions for us” routine.

1. How does the organisation support a collaborative research environment ?
2. What resources are available to initiate meetings and fund collaboration promoting events ?
3. What resources are available to initiate collaborative projects ?
4. How does the organisation facilitate (not just encourage) cross department collaborations ?
5. This does not just include across technical Departments, for example, do the organisations marketing people work effectively on collaborative projects with researchers ?
6. How does the enterprise actively facilitate collaborations?

Organisational structure and attitudes are critical to efficient building of successful collaborations. So don’t go to the wrong place !!

Remember your collaborators may be hampered by the policies of their organisation as you will be by yours. Understand that and work together on them. For many research organisations/bureaucracies,   collaborative research arrangements are really a hassle (the lip-service is usually politically correct) but the practical support afforded to those who are collaboratively active can be a number of decibels below the usual lip-service.

So we have covered why, how and where ….but when ?

Having established yourself in an appropriate organisation, you will be expected to deliver research impact in a timely manner. So when do you expend the effort required to establish collaborations.

Well that’s a real dilemma in our current environment. The suitor needs some credentials to look attractive and those credentials are not just technical. Much to the astonishment of most administrators in research organisations, the establishment of collaborations consumes  energy and resources (this is widely recognised in the business community) where relationships are valued and appropriate resources to initiate and sustain them are supplied. But for researchers, something has to give !

This is usually the shorter term return, linked to “tenure” and promotion. 

In some way, it is much simpler NOT to collaborate; the shorter term returns will most likely be better.

Of course the longer term returns will not compete, so here we start to see the importance of engaging in collaboration with an organisation that really understands and appreciates what is involved, and what the benefits will be if sustainable support is provided.

So Collaborate or Commiserate ….a bit harsh ?   a bit simplistic ?

Yes ….. and very real !

In the space available, all I can hope to have achieved is to have sparked some discussion so that you can refine and customise everything above for your own personal situation.

Your comments are welcome.

Additive BIO Fabrication: Impact, Opportunities and Challenges

Written by:

Prof. Gordon Wallace and Dr Stephen Beirne
Follow Gordon on Twitter: @gordongwallace

ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES)
Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, AIIM Facility, Innovation Campus
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

First published in ATSE magazine (Academy of  Technological Science & Engineering)

In recent years we have outrun our ability to fabricate structures from the amazing materials that we can now create. While this can be said of many areas of materials research it is particularly so in the area of biomaterials. Here, we are often confronted with delicate compositions with nano- to microscopic features that will not survive the traditional (hammer and chisel) approach to fabrication. There is good reason why nature “grows” complex, highly functional structures. Such structures with functionality determined by the spatial distribution of composition with nanodimensional resolution can not be chiselled from a slab of material.

Additive fabrication (AdFab), often referred to as 3D Printing, involves layer-by-layer deposition and fusion of materials to create customised structures. The structure to be produced can be conceptualised, manipulated and defined within a growing array of modelling environments; from conventional parametric Computer-Aided Design (CAD) solutions such as Solidworks™ or ProE™, through to free-form animation toolsets such as Autodesk 3ds Max™, and even free web-based applications like Tinkercad™ (www.tinkercad.com). Once a design is completed, a file that describes the structures’ surface geometry is generated and a set of digitised instructions then drives the printer to create the required structure layer by layer.

The fabrication process can involve several deposition modes. In fused deposition modelling / extrusion printing, a molten build material is deposited and solidified on cooling.  For higher resolution structures (layer thicknesses as low as 16 µm), a fluid material precursor is ink-jetted onto a substrate and simultaneously transformed into a solid structure via a chemical reaction (UV induced polymerisation). Metal structures can be fabricated through a physical micron-scale welding process known as selective laser melting.

The Impact

The recent race to embrace AdFab has had significant wide-ranging impact on those of us involved in biomaterials and biodevices research. For example:-

In Wollongong, we have established Additive Biofabrication capabilities within a dedicated Processing and Devices Facility (Figure 1). Equipment housed here includes commercial additive fabrication systems like the Objet Connex 350™ and Relaizer SLM50™, commercial bio-fabrication systems such as the EnvisonTec Bioplotter™, and customised printing systems such as the KIMM SPS1000, a Reactive Ink-jet Printer and an Extrusion Printer. A more detailed description can be found at http://www.electromaterials.edu.au/equipment/index.html

Figure 1: AdBioFab at Innovation Campus – UOW

The ability to create customised 3D polymeric or metallic structures in the laboratory accelerates experimental design by enhancing the realisation of material components that facilitate experimentation. Additive fabrication provides an in-house capability to design and realise unique set ups in a minimal period of time.

One case in point was the development of an experimental procedure to electrically stimulate cells in vitro on organic conducting polymer surfaces (a study in the field of “Organic Bionics”[1]). Off-the-shelf chamber wells were removed from their original substrate and bonded to a conducting polymer coated gold Mylar substrate to act as a media reservoir. A custom platinum counter electrode mount was produced by additive fabrication (see Figure 2). The mount allows accurate placement of the platinum mesh electrodes in the media reservoir and ensures a repeatable electrode orientation. A proprietary bio-compatible material, Objet MED610™, was chosen as the build material. Production of these components by conventional machining would have been relatively expensive and would not have easily facilitated the small dimensional features of the component.

Batch production of biocompatible components using Objet MED610™ for use in biological experiments (Fig. 2.A)

Platinum mesh electrode mount as used to provide repeatable spacing between electrode surfaces during cell stimulation trials
(Fig. 2.B).

Another example of experimental tool production involved the development of a device to enable studies related to the alleviation of eye pressure arising from glaucoma; a study led by Prof. Michael Coote at the Centre for Eye Research Australia. Concept outline sketches were provided and translated into 3D CAD models. Graphical representations of the implant design allowed for revisions and modifications to be easily communicated and implemented before fabrication (Figure 3).

Batch production of an array of design permutations was achieved in a single build tray printing cycle. Design iterations were simply undertaken without any concern for re-tooling of the hardware.

Figure 3: Illustration depicting concept glaucoma implant as developed within Solidworks™ 2012 and highlighting external dimensions. Completed device as produced using Objet MED610™, after addition of 700 μm OD silicone tubing.

These examples illustrate what can be achieved with commercially available machinery and materials. In other aspects of our work within the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES), we are concerned with the fabrication of structures containing biopolymers, organic conductors and even living cells within new structures for bionics[1].

Existing commercially available equipment can not handle such materials. Consequently we have been involved with the Korean Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM) and the company M4T, who have supplied a customised Scaffold Plotting System (SPS1000™) that is capable of extrusion printing biopolymers; including synthetic biodegradables such as polycaprolactone, or naturally occurring biopolymers such as chitosan. Using this system, we have printed 3D scaffolds (Figure 4(a)). The lower feature size is limited to about 200 µm and is determined by the rheological properties of the bio-ink. Such structures have previously proven useful as scaffolds for tissue regeneration. More recently we have modified this extrusion printer to enable co-axial printing. This required the design and fabrication of a dual reservoir system and a co-axial print head (Figure 4(b)). These components were designed and fabricated in-house – the printhead itself was produced using a 3D metal printer – the era of printing printers is upon us!  Co-axial structures with an inner core diameter range of 200 to 500 µm and an outer core of 600 to 1200 µm diameter were produced. This customised co-axial printing system has already proven useful for the creation of alginate / polycaprolactone co-axial 3D structures and even the creation of structures containing living cells[2].

4a: Porous polycaprolactone (PCL) structures produced through hot-melt extrusion printing in an array of structure geometries based on geometric .stl data and user defined grid spacing parameters.

4b: A batch of co-axial extrusion tips, before final finishing and polishing, produced in Stainless Steel 316L with a Realizer SLM50™ operating with layer slice thickness of 25μm

Using a commercially available ink-jet printer from Dimatix™ and a customised ink using organic conducting polymer nano-particles, we have printed features as small as 20 µm that have been used as bionic guidance tracks to control the direction of nerve growth[3]. Another addition to our printing armoury is a custom built multi-head ink-jet printer that allows printing of multiple components to create new material structures during fabrication, so called reactive printing, wherein the individual components react to form a more mechanically robust structure. For example, this has been used to form biopolymer hydrogel structures that are ionically cross-linked during printing.

With minimal modification, we have also found these print heads to be useful in allowing for the effective delivery of living cells during the printing process; delivering both nerve and muscle cells to create unique biofunctional structures. The cells are maintained using a biopolymer suspension with optimised rheological properties that enable effective delivery through the ink-jet head. The formulation used is multi-purpose and multi-functional, in that it maintains the cells in a healthy state in suspension for many hours, protects cells during delivery and sustains cell viability after printing [4].

AdBioFab – Changing the way we teach, commercialise and do research

After a number of decades wherein advances in materials science have often been limited by our inability to fabricate effectively, we have now entered a new era. Biomaterials researchers have been empowered with the ability to fabricate customised structures using hardware that can be accommodated in most research laboratories at reasonable cost.

The convergence of advances in biomaterials, AdBioFab, Information technology, Nano technology and Bio technology is set to move us forward in biomedical science at an unprecedented rate. Our ability to convert data into knowledge and to effectively disseminate that knowledge has been outrun by our ability to create the primary data!

The knowledge dissemination gap continues to grow wider and this has implications for:

•  Schools and Universities: those responsible for skilling the next generation of researchers.
•  Regulatory authorities: who require information and an understanding of the implications of advances occurring on a number of technological fronts simultaneously.
•  The commercialisation sector: these advances are challenging traditional commercialisation models that are based on mass-manufacturing / cost reduction / sales targets. With additive biofabrication, localised manufacture using exotic materials will deliver the most effective solutions.
•  The community: social acceptance of advances in the medical sector is obviously critical to success. We must develop innovative approaches to present understandable chunks of knowledge.

Now we in materials science can be bold, even audacious. We can develop materials not amenable to current processing and fabrication approaches with the knowledge that we can print-printers; creating the fabrication machinery of the future in tandem with breakthroughs in materials science!

Advances in AdBioFab will have a staggering impact because it not only accelerates the thought-to-thing process, delivering practical solutions sooner, but it also empowers us to make unprecedented fundamental advances. For example, the ability to arrange living cells in 3D within naturally occurring or synthetic biomaterial structures will give insights into environmental effects on cell behaviour – insights hitherto unavailable.

Acknowledgements

The establishment of Additive Biofabrication capabilities in Wollongong has been made possible through the support of the Australian Federal Governments EIF program in providing a processing and devices fabrication facility. Equipment has been made available through EIF as well as the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF) via the Australian Federal Governments NCRIS program. Personnel and personnel support has been provided through the NSW State Government Science Leveraging Fund and the ANFF.

References

---

[1] Wallace, G.G., Moulton, S.E., Higgins, M.J., Kapsa, R.M.I. “Organic Bionics” Wiley-VCH Verlag & Co. KGaA, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany 2012.

[2] Cornock, R., Honours thesis, University of Wollongong 2012.

[3] Weng, B., Liu, X., Higgins, M.J., Shepherd, R., Wallace, G. “Fabrication and Characterization of Cytocompatible Polypyrrole Films Inkjet Printed from Nanoformulations Cytocompatible, Inkjet-Printed Polypyrrole Films” Small 2011, 7 (24), 3434-3438.

[4] Ferris, C.J., Gilmore, K.J., Beirne, S., McCallum, D., Wallace, G.G., in het Panhuis, M. “Bio-ink for on-demand printing of living cells” Biomaterials Science, 2013, 1, 224-230.

Obama inauguration speech: a historic moment for gay and lesbian equality

Written by Marcus O’Donnell, Lecturer, Program Convenor Journalism at the University of Wollongong.

Obama wove the story of gay rights into the language of America’s founding fathers during his inauguration speech. EPA/Shawn Thew

 

Much has been made of the fact President Obama became the first president to mention the word gay in an inaugural address. But the significance lies not in what he said but how he said it.

In declaring, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law” Obama not only declared himself abstractly for “gay rights”, he placed these rights at the heart of the central ideals of the American story.

Obama’s whole speech sprung from his reiteration of the much sung hymn to equality from the Declaration of Independence which he quoted at the start of his speech: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. Presidents and other American orators are fond of quoting this lodestone of the American dream, so it is not surprise that Obama should refer to it.

But his speech was much more telling because he made clear that he took those words as a call to action: “For history tells us that while these truths maybe self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth”.

Again, a rousing call to act for freedom and equality is common place in the American presidential tradition. Obama’s distinctive play on this came with his declaration that securing equality and freedom entailed both a steadfast commitment to the founding father’s vision and embracing intelligent changes in the light of contemporary challenges. “But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”.

Obama’s riff on gay and lesbian rights then begins in a very specific way which very skillfully links it to both adaptation to new challenges and collective action: “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth”.

In this extraordinary declaration, Obama not only declares that adapting to, and fighting for, gay and lesbian rights is important, but that the fight for these rights, which stems from the 1969 Stonewall riots, should be placed on the same footing as the fight for women’s rights at Seneca Falls and the fight for racial equality at Selma. Here the president effectively placed the fight for gay and lesbian rights within the myth of the ongoing American revolution.

This leads to an explicit call for gay and lesbian equality in the next paragraph: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well”.

Obama goes further here than any of his predecessors would have dared. This is not just a call for equality under the law, it is a carefully phrased call for same sex marriage: “the love we commit to one another must be equal as well”.

Obama has recently declared his support for same sex marriage, so this is not a new statement. But his inclusion of such a statement in an inaugural address, a key ritual moment of American democracy, and his inclusion of this declaration in the context of the fight for women’s and civil rights marks yet another milestone in the story of gay and lesbian citizenship.

The fight for marriage equality faces several key tests in the US this year, the most significant of which are the cases before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, both of which define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

One of the ongoing pressure points in American public debate has been around so called “judicial-activism” on social issues. In opposing such “activism” conservative legal scholars often adhere to a doctrine called “originalism”, which proclaims that any constitutional judgement must aim to get as close as possible to the original meaning of the words of the founding fathers when interpreting the constitution.

In this carefully crafted speech, Obama not only laid a claim for gay and lesbian equality and same sex marriage; he was laying a claim that any constitutional value of equality does not have an original or fundamentalist meaning, rather one that constantly evolves.

This is fundamentally at odds with our own Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who appeals to the importance of tradition and “heritage” in her own refusal to acknowledge the marriage rights of gay and lesbian Australians.

Traditions only continue to have meaning when they are reinterpreted and made relevant by each generation. Obama’s inauguration speech was an inspiring attempt to do this. Let’s hope his actions over the next four years are equally inspiring.

Originally posted on The Conversation

Hate blood but want a career in medicine? Don’t worry, there’s a job for you

Written by Ian Wilson, Professor, Associate Dean – Learning and Teaching at University of Wollongong.

Some students come into medicine with a fixed idea of what they want to do – but this often changes. uonottingham

Just before I finished high school, my local general practitioner suggested I consider medicine. But the thought of blood made me feel squeamish, so I went to university to do maths and physics, and to try the new field of computer science. Needing a fourth subject, I opted for biology so that my friend who also did biology could give me a lift to campus.

I ended up becoming fascinated with biology, so much so that I wanted to study neuroscience, and I felt the best way into a research career was through medicine. Luckily, I was successful. As an undergraduate I discovered patients and shifted my focus to a career as a psychiatrist.

I was called up for National Service and ended up on a Defence Force Scholarship. During this time I became interested in trauma surgery and after discharge joined the surgical training scheme. After six months of surgery, I was bored with the technical side but still enjoyed the patient contact and interaction. Being married with one child and another on the way, I opted for general practice with a mental health and procedural focus.

I tell this story in some detail to highlight the meanderings that many students undertake in their career decision-making. Some students come into medicine with a fixed idea of what they want to do and spend their time achieving that goal.

But the majority are more like me and develop multiple interests. Where they end up generally depends on a number of factors such as available training posts, skill levels, controllability of lifestyle and to a very small extent, salary.

The Medical Schools Outcome Database and Longitudinal Tracking Project (MSOD) asks students about their career intentions on entry to and exit from medical school, and as interns (their first year working in a hospital) and residents (their second year of work). On entry to medical school in 2011, 25% of medical students had a first preference for surgery with paediatrics and general practice the next most frequent.

The preferences of those exiting medical school in 2011 were a little different: internal medicine and surgery were the most common career choices (18% each) followed by general practice and then paediatrics. Towards the end of the internship, the preferences changed again, with internal medicine the most frequently chosen (19%) followed by general practice and then surgery.

The least preferable career options tend to be rehabilitation, public health and palliative care – most students come into medicine to save lives, making these specialities less appealing.

With the growing number of medical graduates and the relative shortage of intern and specialist training positions, we have noticed a change in student behaviour.

Increasingly, students are attempting to ensure their undergraduate experiences provide them with the best advantage for their career selection process. Honours degrees or the publication of papers will add a few extra points in some speciality selection processes and students are working hard to achieve these goals.

Hospital choice is also seen as important, as there is a perception among medical students that undertaking an internship in a specific hospital increases their chances of being selected into a specific specialist training program. But these beliefs aren’t necessarily based on facts.

Some experts have suggested using career counselling to increase the number of students entering careers that are less appealing or where there are significant shortages. But there’s no evidence to show career counselling works in this way.

The best way to deal with this issue is around student selection and undergraduate experiences. Choosing students who are more likely to enter a given profession and providing them with experiences that are positive will work much more effectively in promoting careers in the generalist professions (medicine, surgery and rural general practice).

But often the impact of changes does not stop at the school level. Many professionals, including doctors, invest so much of their time and energy into their careers they are surprised that their practice takes on a sameness. Once you have delivered 200 babies or conducted 100 gall bladder operations the procedures lose their excitement.

This is the point at which many doctors start looking for something new and engage in medical politics, education, research, business ventures or artistic endeavours.

Some, like me, become dissatisfied with individual care and want to have a bigger impact on the world. Moving into academia to train the next cohorts of doctors seemed a logical step. In light of my original interest in research, this was a hugely positive for me.

Originally posted on The Conversation

The Private World of Carbon Reporting

Written by Corrine Cortese, Senior Lecturer at the University of Wollongong, and Jane Andrew, Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney.

Carbon reporting regulations are controlled by a select few. freefotouk/Flickr

Five years ago, we really didn’t have a clue what an organisation’s carbon impact might look like, and few firms had any sort of carbon-oriented business plan. Now, the trend is to fill this gap by producing carbon reports.

But within this story of emerging carbon reporting practice lies another story that has received little attention – how corporate elites have worked together to design their own self-regulations.

Before we get to that, it’s important we map out the story so far.

A brand new idea

Going back a few years now, there was a general feeling that organisations should tell us more about their carbon footprint, so that both insiders and outsiders could start to move towards more carbon sensitive decisions.

This was a kind of mobilisation phase – getting people on board with a new idea. Arguments were developed, suggesting reasons why organisations should tell us more about carbon. Some of these reasons offered a moral framing of organisational responsibility, while others articulated a more strategic need for good carbon data to manage climate change risks.

Carbon reporting soon became the focus of discussion, and we saw a rapid growth in the production and reporting of carbon-related data. Many organisations began to focus on the carbon disclosures they produced for outside users.

Such projects are technically difficult, and also very “market sensitive”. It’s understandable that firms didn’t want to get the measurements wrong, and most of us can appreciate that they didn’t want to get their carbon image wrong either. Outside of these organisations, there was a growing call for carbon information to be placed in the public domain to give us some idea of how organisations were managing carbon “risks and opportunities”. Firms began to respond.

The idea was simple; organisations provide information voluntarily, thereby signalling their good citizenship and strategic management of climate change abatement responsibilities.

Such a disclosure regime rests on the logic that a free market will provide the information demanded by participants without the need for regulatory intervention. “Good” organisations would be rewarded with greater investment and better borrowing conditions and “bad” performers would be disciplined (they’d be put out of business or reform their behaviour to attract necessary capital).

The problems with this kind of green capitalism that are well documented. So, for the purposes of this article, we’ll just focus on one tiny part: the practical reality of carbon reporting data and its potential role in climate change abatement.

Who designs the standard?

In reality, carbon reports are almost impossible to compare. There are now so many voluntary disclosure regimes and carbon reporting practices. These are based on a variety of frameworks and protocols. In effect, this means carbon information can look comparable, but in actual fact the output can be significantly different.

This has been frustrating. The frustration is particularly acute when trying to make the capital allocation decisions that have driven much of the carbon reporting agenda. These decisions depend on information that is comparable and standardised.

The existence of different reporting frameworks has limited the capacity for good market allocation decisions, and it has also limited our capacity to understand an organisation’s actual carbon impact.

The problem has not gone unnoticed. But up to this point, it has dodged any serious regulatory intervention, and has presented an opportunity for reporters to build a “standardised” framework themselves. It’s a scenario with obvious problems, but it has managed to fly under the radar and avoid much attention.

So who is designing the “global standards” for carbon reporting? The answer: perhaps disturbingly – is the private sector within the Carbon Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) leading this international initiative. It is important to note that the CDSB is a side project of the World Economic Forum (WEF), an organisation that is well known for its elite, private status.

This in itself is problematic. But the problems are amplified because the obvious exclusivity of membership within the WEF has been reproduced within the centres of the CDSB – without an eyebrow raised.

By way of example, the advisory board that guides the work of the CDSB is made up of representatives from corporations including Duke Energy, Praxair, Rio Tinto, British Telecom and Tokyo Electric Power Corporation. On the Board itself are representatives from groups such as CERES, the WEF, the Climate Registry, the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Climate Group, the World Resources Institute and the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).

On face value, there appears to be an appropriate mix of “players” in the development of standards. But with a little further digging, it is apparent that within all of these groups, similar organisations are funding or participating in their activities in some way.

For example, the IETA has over 180 members from around the globe. The current Chairman is a Senior Climate Change Adviser for the Royal Dutch Shell Group, and a Vice Chairman is from Rio Tinto. Both Royal Dutch Shell and Rio Tinto have served on the Advisory Committee of the CDSB. Other members of the IETA that are also members of the CDSB Advisory Committee and Technical Working Group include Duke Energy, APX Power Markets, JP Morgan Chase, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Closed shop

Similar patterns of interconnectedness can be seen with other members of the board, advisory group and technical consultants. In other words, the same key players have a role in the development of carbon reporting initiatives. In effect, voluntary carbon regulation has become a closed shop. There are all kinds of reasons why this may be a reasonable space for regulatory development but we make a simple, yet important, observation.

Organisations like the CDSB are not neutral arbiters of best practice. They are vested with a wealth of political and economic power – and they are working hard to make sure carbon reporting regulation reflects the wishes of their members.

Given this, some researchers are now suggesting that the focus on reporting techniques has distracted attention away from more fundamental questions about environmental governance. In our rush to encourage a carbon sensitive market, there has been little room to pause and ask, who is behind all this? What will be the tangible environmental benefits that result? Are we ready to believe that publicly listed companies will formulate carbon regulations that serve the planet?

Originally posted on The Conversation

Four visions, three dimensions: the future of 3D printing

By Thomas Birtchnell, Lecturer in Social Sciences, Media and Communication at University of Wollongong, and Professor John Urry, Department of Sociology at Lancaster University.

Originally posted on The Conversation

 

Chances are you’ve heard about 3D printing – or additive manufacturing as it’s otherwise known: a process that turns computer-aided designs into three-dimensional, real-world objects with a range of uses, from a range of materials and on a range of scales.

But you’ve probably heard little in terms of the social impact that 3D printing and its associated technologies will likely have.

Those possible impacts are exactly what we’re investigating at Lancaster University and the University of Wollongong. We’ve identified four potential scenarios that could eventuate in a world that embraces 3D printing and, crucially, how those scenarios could affect everyday life.

Where we’re at

Walking around the 3D Printshow 2012 in London last month, the hype around 3D printing technology was palpable.

The first stall in view was MakerBot’s, and the company’s CEO and founder Bre Pettis was busy spruiking their Replicator 2 – Time Magazine’s Best Invention of 2012.

But it was in the other stalls out the back, populated by artists, entrepreneurs and researchers, where this innovation could be seen doing really interesting things.

In those stalls there were different intimations of the futures we have imagined in our project at Lancaster University.

In one corner there were a couple of children playing the game Minecraft. Their mother explained that they were actually creating 3D designs within the game (in between foraging for food and fighting spiders).

The game players design objects from cube-shaped blocks in the same way they might design in-game houses and caves.

A clever piece of software called Printcraft uploads designs made in Minecraft to a server, which automatically converts the designs into 3D-printable files. Then the player simply prints the design out on an adjacent 3D printer, in this case a MakerBot.

At another company’s stall a salesperson (the inventor was her dad) claimed her printer could print different colours at the same time – something that hasn’t been possible with 3D printers until now.

 Next to this one there was a 3D printer with a handle so it could be carried around – both printers drew on the open-source Reprap design.

An adjacent stall was a bit different in that it didn’t feature 3D printers. Instead, a team of designers and marketing gurus offered their 3D printing expertise for small product runs and trial inventions.

Further along there was a scale model of the Urbee 3D-printed car. There was also a chain-mail shirt made of tiny steel links, amazingly assembled by an expensive laser sintering printer.

And most impressively there was a row of 3D-printed mummified animals from an archaeological project rendered in near-perfect detail down to the bandages, as per the photo below:

Where we’re going

Our research has seen us explore four different social futures around 3D printing.

They were shaped by how corporate this new industrial revolution will be and how much individuals will engage with the technology. In particular we were interested in how 3D printing might influence the transportation of objects and the travel of people.

In order to find out what futures might be, where 3D printing has significance (or not), we held a workshop with the Futures Company in London, and picked the brains of engineers, consultants, policymakers and designers. The four possible futures are below:

1. Home factories

Everyone has a 3D printer in their home sitting next to their paper printer and making plastic jewellery, kitchen utensils, toys, models, homework projects and non-critical replacement parts.

People in this future no longer derive as much satisfaction from shopping in the high street for cheap products and are printing much more “stuff”, mostly made of plastic or resin.

2. Print shops

Manufacturing has “returned” to places such as the UK, the US and Australia.

Companies are integrating high-end 3D printers that print all sorts of exotic materials – from steel and titanium to sandstone and carbon fibre – into their supply chains and retail outlets.

As a result there are efficiency gains in how objects are transported and where they are made. Aeroplane parts and car dashboards, for instance, are made locally and customised to order.

3. Fab labs

Groups of people work together on not-for-profit or subsidised printers provided with support services and technicians.

The main focus is not new markets but rather new communities that craft objects they intend to use for recreation or for trading and selling in specialist “maker fairs”.

These communities hinge on open-source technologies and co-production ethics, and generally people are still relying on a global production system for much of what they need.

4. The 3D bubble

The market bubble has burst as inflated expectations have caused 3D printing to be severely over-hyped.

Many small entrepreneurs have gone bust and multinational corporations have not renewed their product lines. Consumers are dissatisfied with the appearance and unreliability of 3D-printed objects and design software is too complicated to master.

In this fourth future, 3D printing is still being used by specialists for prototyping, preservation of collections and high-end bespoke accessories.

 

 Will any of these futures happen? As always, time will tell. But we should be discussing the potential social impacts now, before the future arrives.

In the meantime, as the 3D Printshow 2012 ably demonstrated, there are already many exciting and inspiring uses of this technology.