Thursday, October 31, 2013

Investing in the future: international scientific collaboration

Jun 2013
Dr. Shanta Karki studies rice plants being grown at IRRI's Biotech labs.
The weight of global investment in science and technology is shifting. Strong R&D growth in countries like China, India, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia means Asia is fast catching up to the traditional scientific centres of Europe, North America and Japan. This is a pivotal period.
Nowhere is this more evident than China. According to former Chinese President Hu Jintao, ‘China has set the goal to become an innovation-driven economy by 2020′. The Chinese are backing their rhetoric with action, with real growth in R&D spending exceeding 18% per annum since 2000.
Scientific research is now a truly global enterprise. The General Electric 2011 Global Innovation Barometer forecasts that 40% of global innovation over the next decade will be driven by collaboration across national and institutional boundaries. This is because research is conducted most efficiently when ideas, data, facilities, equipment, talent and risks are shared on a competitive basis. Despite that, the Government has made decisions in recent years to retreat from strategic collaborative engagement.
Past investments in science and scientific collaboration have made Australia a world-classknowledge producer, problem solver and therefore an attractive partner. But past performance is no guarantee of future success. While overseas representatives seek opportunities to engage, we’ve taken ourselves to the sidelines at this fertile time, unable to properly respond to collaborative requests or to initiate strategic engagements of our own.
In 15 years, the Australian middle class consumer market is likely to be less than 1% of the size of that in the Asia region. Our larger neighbours are eager to collaborate because our scientific capacity affords us a standing far greater than the size of our population or markets. Our decision to retreat doesn’t meet the expectations of our traditional collaborators in Europe and North America and is confusing the emerging scientific communities in Asia.
In Canberra today, over a dozen foreign embassies have science counsellors or attachés whose task is to join Australia’s research efforts with their national interests. Collaboration requires shared goals but, as a Parliamentary Committee found, our roughly $9 billion annual public science investment supports the local science base and some limited overseas activities, but little, if any, reciprocal impact abroad.
Nations such as China and Korea are part of a growing group of countries that’ve taken deliberate steps to strategically foster science collaboration. That’s because they know that this has a multiplier effect on their own domestic investment, leading to greater innovation, productivity and social wellbeing. The scientific community in Australia expects to be able to deliver similar benefits.
With 0.3% of the global population, Australia produces 3% of global research. Because of our standards and past commitment to international linkages, Australia has enjoyed strong ties to the remaining 97% of new research produced elsewhere. As the global balance of R&D investment and growth shifts, our existing ties are rapidly expiring.
As noted by Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Schmidt: ‘part of Australia continuing to succeed in the rapidly evolving world of science and technology is looking beyond our borders to work cooperatively with colleagues overseas’.
Government and industry must take steps to improve our international science engagement. The scientific community looks to Government to set out a clear strategy, backed by directing a small fraction (perhaps 0.25%) of our existing science budget specifically towards strategic international science engagement.
To gain situational awareness of what’s going on and planned in the 97% of the world research scene that doesn’t occur in Australia, we need an effective network of Science Counsellors and locally engaged staff at our posts. Since 1995, our network of posted Science Counsellors hasdropped from a peak of 16 in 1995 to part responsibility of a few posted staff today.
Recently, an overseas network, posted or locally engaged by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, has been established to provide support for Australia’s education and training services. Education exports are important and value adding and deserving of strategic support. We could similarly benefit from investing in support for our strategic interests in scientific collaboration.
The USA 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review noted that ‘science and technology must be enlisted in an unprecedented fashion’. The US State Department backs this rhetoric with approximately 50 Foreign Service officers in their embassies, including several in China, to focus exclusively on environment, science, technology and health issues.
In contrast, Australia has a Counsellor and a Minister Counsellor for Education in China. As a matter of some urgency, we need to build an effective network. Scale alone suggests we ought to be proactive. The annual gross expenditure on R&D in Australia is approximately US$22 billion,compared with almost half a trillion expended by China ($220b), India (US$45b), Japan ($161b) and South Korea ($57b).
The Government’s laudable 2025 goal is to have ten of our universities in the world’s top 100. Given the importance of research and international outlook to such rankings, this is unlikely to happen without a science collaboration policy and the means to implement it.
Leveraging science and diplomacy not only amplifies and augments our domestic investment, but it also builds very strong bilateral relationships and contributes to broader foreign policy objectives. Key among the critical strategic opportunities facing our country is the choice to compete in the field of new knowledge (PDF). The science community seeks a Government policy in this important area.
We believe there’s a closing window of opportunity for Australia to maximise our intellectual contribution to the twenty-first century. Action to remain engaged and collaborative wouldn’t be a new initiative; it would be restoration of past successful policy.
Andrew Holmes is the Foreign Secretary, Australian Academy of Science. Image courtesy of Flickr user IRRI Images.

SOURCE

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Thinking Outside The GMO Box

Genetically Modified Organisms.  Some argue they are the way to “feed the world” and that an exploding population will require them.  Others see GMO technology as part of a corporate plot to take over fields and drive farmers into debt, while everything from pesticide use to allergies are on the rise because of them.
And while that discussion is one we must have, the GMO debate is also distracting us from less sexy interventions which have worked to dramatically reduce hunger and malnutrition over the last fifty years, and are today in desperate need of our continued support.
These successful programs had a remarkable impact on the number in need today because they made small scale farmers more profitable and families more self reliant, diets more diverse and children and adults better educated.
“Success [is] not simply about increasing the physical supply of food,” states “Millions Fed,” a report by the International Food Policy Research Institute. “Rather, [successes] are about reductions in hunger that result…from a change in an individual’s ability to secure quality food.”
“Nutrition is multifaceted – it involves access to food, water and sanitation, hygiene, disease and infection, poverty,” says Nancy Haselow, Vice President of the Helen Keller International (HKI), and Regional Director for Asia Pacific. “There is no single solution to solve malnutrition, so we need to provide multiple and synergistic interventions, a combination of approaches is best.  Sustainable solutions that can be left in the community, are owned by the community, and put tools and knowledge and skills in the hands of mothers and fathers are important to addressing the problem.”
A myriad of initiatives, non-reliant on GMO technology, have already proven successful in reducing hunger.  For example, Helen Keller International has successfully impacted more than five million people with long lasting nutritional, economic and educational changes through their Homestead Food Program.  Another example is BRAC (formerly the Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee) which now has 97,000 women “shasthya shebika” (health workers) in Bangladesh alone, working to bring micronutrient powders and basic health care services (including education on critical topics like breastfeeding) to extremely rural communities.
And by using already-available, proven, and cost effective storage methods, African small-scale farmers are able to safely store food, like cowpeas – a staple food high in iron and protein – and to therefore benefit from their consumption and sale.  Likewise in India and Tanzania, farmers are now using Zero Energy Cool Chamber technology to ensure valuable food is not wasted.
Perhaps most importantly, holistic, community based solutions like home gardens, diet diversification and better food storage (which means less waste of precious resources) are critical elements in creating a better future in a climate-changing world.
A new report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) found that “international policy discussions remain heavily focused on increasing industrial agricultural production, mostly under the slogan “growing more food at less cost to the environment.”  But, the study found, hunger is not caused by a lack of food but by “a lack of purchasing power and/or the inability of the rural poor to be self-sufficient.”
“The world needs a paradigm shift in agricultural development from a “green revolution” to an “ecological intensification” approach.  This implies a rapid and significant shift from conventional, monoculture-based and input-dependent industrial production towards…sustainable, regenerative production systems.”
Yet unlike “GMOs” – which do continue to promote conventional, monoculture-based, input dependent agriculture – most of us have never heard of “dietary diversification” projects.  We know nothing of the shasthya shebika health workers or of a system of crop intensification that increases rice, wheat and other crop yields while using less water and seed.  And that lack of discussion and knowledge is exemplified in a lack of support for these critical programs.
“It has been excruciatingly difficult to get funding for the Homestead Food Program.” says Nancy Haselow of HKI.  “For me, it’s a no brainer – you see a family growing vegetables, their kids looking chubby and healthy, and they have a sense of doing it themselves.  But over the past 10-15 years, we have raised only about $25-28 million for all our Homestead Food Production Programs in Asia Pacific.”

Instead, donors have been seduced by talk of “easy,” high tech solutions and despite the proven successes of these alternative programs, the drive to increase production via improved seeds and fertilizer, charges on.


SOURCE:  Forbes

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Allow Golden Rice Now!

Allow Golden Rice Now!
Media Release -  October 1, 2013
Former Greenpeace leader Patrick Moore to lead demonstration against Greenpeace's crime against humanity, their anti-Golden Rice campaign that perpetuates blindness and death among millions of children.
www.allowgoldenricenow.org


At 10 AM on October 2 the global campaign Allow Golden Rice Now! will be launched in front of the Greenpeace office at 33 Cecil Street. Dr. Patrick Moore will lead the demonstration with a banner that reads:
'Greenpeace's Crime Against Humanity' ' Eight Million Children Dead' 'AllowGoldenRiceNow.org'

Details of the campaign and the demonstration will be released at an information session to be held tonight, October 1, at 7 PM at the Pauper's Pub at 539 Bloor Street West.

The aim of the campaign is to convince Greenpeace that they should make an exception to their zero-tolerance position on genetic modification in the case of Golden Rice, on humanitarian grounds. The World Health Organization estimates that up to 500,000 children become blind each year due to vitamin A deficiency, half of whom die within a year of becoming blind. About 250 million preschool children suffer from vitamin A deficiency among the nearly 3 billion people who depend on rice as their staple food.

Conventional rice has no beta-carotene, the nutrient that humans need to produce vitamin A. In 1999 Dr. Ingo Potrykus and Dr. Peter Beyer, both science professors who were aware of this humanitarian crisis, invented Golden Rice after a nine-year effort. By inserting genes from corn they were able to cause rice plants to produce beta-carotene in the rice kernel. It is beta-carotene that makes corn golden and carrots orange. Golden Rice can end the blindness, suffering and death caused by vitamin A deficiency.

Field trials in Louisiana, the Philippines, and Bangladesh have proven that Golden Rice can be grown successfully. Clinical nutritional trials with animals, adult humans, and vitamin A deficient children have proven that Golden Rice will deliver sufficient vitamin A to cure this affliction. Yet Greenpeace continues to support the violent destruction of the field trials and trashes the peer-reviewed science that proves Golden Rice is effective and safe. We demand that they end these activities, stop fundraising on this issue, and declare that they are not opposed to Golden Rice. We believe that their continued actions to block Golden Rice constitute a crime against humanity as defined by the United Nations.

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines is coordinating the research and development of Golden Rice. The IRRI is supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Helen Keller International, USAID, and many agricultural research organizations. Golden Rice is controlled by non-profit organizations, and it produces viable Golden Rice seeds, so farmers are not dependent on any particular supplier.

"The Allow Golden Rice Now! campaign will carry this protest to Greenpeace offices around the world," stated Dr. Moore. "Eight million children have died unnecessarily since Golden Rice was invented. How many more million can Greenpeace carry on its conscience?"
Allow Golden Rice Now!
www.allowgoldenricenow.org
Contact:
Patrick Moore    778-995-4122               
Michael Moore   250-888-7762
info@allowgoldenricenow.org