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.

 

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

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.

All washed up: have surf megabrands forgotten their roots?

By Andrew Warren, Post-Doctoral Researcher at University of Wollongong and Chris Gibson, Professor of Human Geography at University of Wollongong.

Australia’s surf megabrands — once thriving cultural icons — are now facing a changing tide of fortunes.

 

Yesterday’s announcement that iconic brand Rip Curl plans to sell-up raises the question: just what has happened to Australia’s iconic surf brands?

It has been well publicised that the big three surf labels – Rip Curl, Quiksilver and Billabong – have experienced shrinking sales and expanding debts. Suburban consumers have turned away from expensive surf-branded apparel. Coupled with the rise of online shopping, doubts are growing about the future viability of corporatised surf brands.

Raw economics certainly matters to the surf industry. The big three have been hit hard by recession in the United States and Europe, where they have concentrated most of their retail investment. Their timing was terrible. Just before the GFC, Quiksilver and Billabong both expanded their business operations. Billabong bought up a substantial number of surf retail outlets. Quiksilver acquired, and has since had to sell, a series of non-surf leisure brands – including Rossignol skis and Cleveland Golf equipment. Expansion added huge debts, which became difficult to finance when retail returns evaporated.

A subcultural industry

We think the problems facing the big three can also be explained through understanding surfing subculture. From informal beginnings shaping boards in backyard workshops and tool sheds, the selling of the surf remains strongly influenced by subcultural values and fashion cycles within the surfing scene.

In our new book on the surf industry, to be published next year by University of Hawaii Press, we make the point that, like music, it is a subcultural industry defined by a tension between “major” corporate labels and smaller “independents”. Independent labels have more credibility because they are considered closer to the grassroots of surfing culture. They are often based in specific surf cities and regions – southern California, the Gold Coast, north shore O’ahu – where surf subcultures are strong.

When brands grow and expand, they take on the character of corporate enterprises. The listing of Quiksilver on the NYSE in 1998 and Billabong on the ASX in 2000 signalled abrupt changes to the existing structure of the surf industry. Rightly or wrongly, many surfers felt that profitability and capital growth became more important than fulfilling surfer’s needs and desires. Surf companies have up-scaled production, acquired smaller brands, opened flagship retail stores and supplied stock to department stores. Quiksilver now supplies their surf-wear to department chain Macy’s in the United States and David Jones in Australia. Increasing market share is the goal, to pay shareholders dividends. Brand visibility to the masses is everything. But this undermines the claim to service local roots and the needs of every-day surfers.

Undermining credibility

The marketing of surfing’s cool image has allowed companies to sell the surf to a wider range of consumers. Despite its inland geography, in 2010 the US mid-west region was worth a remarkable $457 million in surf retail sales. The trade-off is that selling surf-wear through department stores undermines scarcity and subcultural value. Brand credibility falters.

This is not new. In the 1960s surf, labels Ocean Pacific and Hang Ten successfully diversified from surfboards and board shorts into different types of surf and swimwear. Yet in the 1980s, when their products moved out of surf shops and into department stores, subcultural affiliation collapsed. The big three now appear to be heading in the same direction.

When scarcity value is lost, other independent labels fill the niche. They look much more authentic and responsive by comparison. Their surfboards, clothes and apparel are harder to find, raising scarcity value. Independent brands appear rooted in surfing cities and regions. Corporate surf firms, by contrast, appear placeless and “uncool”. In time, the “majors” swallow up newer, smaller “independents” (as happened with RVCA, Palmers, Dakine and Von Zipper), temporarily leveraging their street cred. But the cycle starts all over again.

Differences and divergences

While the big three surf brands clearly face hardship, it is wrong to assume that all three are the same, or are equally doomed. Quiksilver and Billabong are listed companies. Responsibilities to shareholders and investors will influence future business planning. Any restructuring of Billabong and Quiksilver, or recapturing of their subcultural cachet, is unlikely to involve winding back stock from department store shelves. The recent appointment of former Target CEO Launa Inman as head of Billabong confirms this.

Rip Curl, on the other hand, remains privately owned. Whether this grants more flexibility to maintain ways of doing business that retain credibility and profitability is moot. Nevertheless, Rip Curl maintains a stronger strategic focus on surf “hardwear”: wetsuits and surfboard retail. Despite a dramatic fall in the last 12 months, Rip Curl remains profitable.

Surfing industry, surfing subculture

Broader economic conditions have gutted the performance of Australia’s largest surf brands. But macroeconomic conditions do not explain the full story. Surfing is a subculture, not an anonymous market for run-of-the-mill consumer goods. Given Australia’s strong connection to surfing, demand for surf products and equipment will endure. Newer, edgier brands will emerge and compete for market share. Whether the big three Australian firms can adapt and maintain their connections to surfing subcultures will be interesting to watch. Beyond the shopping mall, the key to understanding surf capitalism is watching the unfurling logics of its subculture.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Clinical research a no-brainer

By Dr Heath Ecroyd

Dr Heath Ecroyd – Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, UOW.

Dr Ecroyd is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Wollongong and a group leader at the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute.

Let’s start with the good news. The census data released on 21 June 2012 shows that Australians are living longer than ever and that death rates from heart attacks and some kinds of cancer are falling.

However, our increasing life span comes at a cost. Indeed, if you live long enough, it is very likely that you will experience some kind of neurodegenerative disorder which may be a form of mild dementia or something more serious like Alzheimer’s disease.

Current figures suggest that over 260,000 Australians already suffer dementia, with some predicting that this figure will grow to one million by 2050.

Unfortunately, the Illawarra is likely to become a hotspot for these kinds of diseases as we already have a higher proportion of people aged 85 years and over (16 per cent) than the NSW average (14 per cent) and, by 2021, it is predicted that the population aged 70-84 years will increase by 45 per cent, while the 85 years and over group will more than double.

It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to see that we are likely to be in for a bit of a rough ride when it comes to neurodegenerative disorders; especially when you consider that current treatments for these diseases are based on alleviating the symptoms, rather than treating the cause.

As health “consumers”, Illawarra residents probably imagine that scientists around the world are working hard on understanding these diseases and seeking cures – and they are.

What many may not realise, however, is that right here in the Illawarra, there is a growing group of researchers who are also trying to piece together the puzzle about the causes of neurodegeneration – a term we use to describe the progressive loss of function and eventual death of neurons.

Based at the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute (IHMRI) and the University of Wollongong, we all have slightly different views on how to piece the puzzle together, but what we all share is a focus on the fundamental science behind these diseases. What that means is that we are focused on understanding the cause. By doing so, we hope that we can one day discover a cure.

My area of interest is the role that proteins play in diseases such as Parkinson’s disease.

As we get older, the proteins in our body can start to lose their shape and, because of this, they start to malfunction and form clumps that sit in the brain and cause disease. These clumps are the telltale signs of many neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s.

Our current thinking is that, if you can stop the clumping, you can stop the onset of the disease. A number of clinical trials are now being conducted internationally on drugs that do exactly this – which means we are on the right track.

Normally, our body has systems in place to prevent this clumping but, as we age, these too do not work like they used to, making us more vulnerable to disease. The focus of my work is discovering how we can boost the activity of these systems in order to stop those clumps forming in the first place.

While a cure may still be a way off, the fact that we have people working in this area and access to state-of-the-art facilities in the Illawarra means that we have just as much of a chance to finding a solution than any other lab or scientist.

In fact, we are attracting more funding and more talented researchers to Wollongong. In November this year we will host a major conference focused on these diseases and what causes them. It has attracted some of the best national and international researchers, giving us the opportunity to hear the latest results from leading labs around the world as well as highlighting the great work we are doing here at IHMRI.

I feel it is important to promote what we do as it is the Australian tax payer who ultimately funds our work and we want to show that that money is being put to good use.

Academic snobbery: local historians need more support

Written by Ian Willis, Honorary Fellow at University of Wollongong.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Photo: Flickr/Kate’s Photo Diary

 

Local history is one of the most popular forms of history in Australia. Yet there is a yawning gap between the enthusiastic amateur and the academic historian.

While some academic historians engage with local history, sadly there is an entrenched snobbery from the academy. From the other side, the enthusiastic amateur is too wound up with a parochial approach to local history and often doesn’t see the bigger picture.

If both sides can engage with each other, the result would be a better type of history practise and a greater contribution to the story of Australia.

Occupying Wall Street and Remembering the 1960s

When I was interviewed recently about the Wall Street protests by Triple J and Brisbane’s ZZZ, I stressed their significance as symbolic politics but expressed doubts about comparisons being made with both the Arab Spring revolts and the radical movements of the 1960s. Yet since these interviews the protests have grown and spread across America in a way that does compel some serious speculation that a new movement for social change is developing. Participants and commentators from my generation (broadly speaking the baby boomers) are heartened by the number of young people involved.

These young people are witnessing a massive decline in job opportunities at the very time that many of them have increasing debt due to heightened student loans. They also face a world in which the richest 1% prosper while the middle class shrinks, working class salaries are effectively cut, the official poverty rate is now above 15% (whereas ten years ago it was at 11%) and black rates of poverty and incarceration signal an intensifying racial divide. The protestors in Wall St. want to turn that world around, want the financiers to be held accountable for the wreckage they have created, want a more equal society and one that does not squander its wealth on the military industrial complex and imperial adventures abroad. Sounds like the Sixties? At one level, yes, but at another not quite.

25 Years at UOW – “what a privilege”, says Prof. Gordon Wallace

Twenty five years ago I received a call in my University College Cork office from Prof. Leon Kane-Maguire, then Head of Department of Chemistry at University of Wollongong. I did not know that call was about to change the course of my professional life – allowing me to embark on an incredibly exciting research journey.

This year I celebrate 25 years “service” to the University of Wollongong. Arriving in Wollongong I found myself in a University keen to establish international research credentials and to be innovative in the approach that was used to do that. I have been privileged to be caught up in and to be allowed to contribute to that exciting venture. A start up research grant of $2,000 (AUD) was proudly negotiated by Prof. Kane-Maguire and the University hierarchy (I guess). Start up research funds at other Universities were significantly greater but I have since learnt that enthusiasm, camaraderie and the working environment (eventually) outweigh any lack of funding available.

I was fortunate that at this point in time some of the best PhD students in Australia were also attracted to this challenging dynamic and rapidly growing research environment. Together we forged viable research activities, faced with the challenge of balancing applied research (the major source of our support at that time) with our desire and need to build a strong fundamental research base. A research theme emerged that could satisfy these twin desires and was “sexy” enough to generate interest at all levels in our community – it was intelligent polymers. Polymers, for example, that could monitor and respond/shut down corrosion or that could detect biological imbalances or imperfections and correct them. The concept was indeed visionary (perhaps more so than we thought at the time) with short term outcomes possible and the longer term continually presenting us with significantly more research challenges. Twenty one years later (2011), the Intelligent Polymer Research Institute has come of age and the science is as intriguing as ever. We are excited by on-going discoveries and enthused by the outcomes we see possible by integrating multifunctional behaviour into devices at the molecular level.

Food Security a Real Issue

Professor Linda Tapsell

Recent natural disasters have led to the phrase – ‘food security’ – being used with increasing frequency. With floods devastating our banana plantations up north; drought conditions affecting  wheat crops in West Australia; and earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan, there is no doubt that food security is something to think about today.

But what exactly does food security mean? Essentially, it is about having enough food that is good for you. Yet it is more than a measure of the amount of food that is or isn’t available. Food security is also measure by the quality of nutrition and prevailing social and economic factors.

Food security is in fact a population health concept which requires constant monitoring and attention. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) refers to food security in terms of all people at all times having physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious foods. These foods must meet dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. 

On a national and global scale, food security covers food production and trade. The effects of floods, bushfires, hurricanes, earthquakes and droughts are all considered when assessing the quantity of food being produced and available.

It is also assessed on a scale of nourishment. Even when there is plenty of food, the nutritional quality of this food is an important determinant of food security. It is possible for individuals to not meet all their nutrient requirements in conditions where poor food choices are made in the midst of plenty. For example, the problem of obesity is also a problem of food security because it reflects an imbalance in meeting nutritional requirements.

From a social perspective, food is an integral part of cultural conditions.  Having access to foods that people recognise as staples and are able to prepare in safe and nutritious ways is another important dimension of food security.  This is what ‘meeting food preferences’ refers to. The provision of food must be considered in context where traditions and usual eating patterns are reflected in the nutritious foods that are provided.

Australia has a great deal of expertise in food security. In particular, it has special expertise in agriculture that can be applied to food production where there is climate variability.  Economically we have influence – Australia produces enough food for 60 million people, triple our population, and food trade is an important part of our economy.  We also have extensive expertise in how food affects health, and professions such as the Dietitians Association of Australia to support the community in making healthy food choices. We have great opportunities for combining these areas of agricultural and diet expertise to produce food that promotes health for the population and with a coordinated effort from government and institutions can contribute substantially to food security in our region.

Food security can also begin at home, for example, with the community valuing food much more. This can be done by celebrating and being creative with healthy food, choosing better food for meals and snacks, learning more about good food at school, eating just enough to maintain a healthy weight, and considering the environment in our resources management of food.

An excellent, and timely, resource that our institutions, business and the community can draw on to better understand and plan for food security is the recently released Australia and Food Security in a Changing World report, released by the Prime Ministers Science Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) expert working group through the Chief Scientist for Australia (http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/about/publications/).

As we face a number of challenges to our food security through natural disasters, social change and economic influences, it is time to embrace a coordinated approach to ensure we have enough food that is good for all of us well into the future.

Professor Linda Tapsell is the Director of the Nutrition theme at the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, a joint initiative of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health Network and the University of Wollongong. She is also Director of the UOW Smart Foods Centre. She was a member of the Expert Working Group that produced the PMSEIC report.