Official notice of Australian Science Communicators’ Annual General Meeting, Perth, WA

30 November 2011
6:00 pmto9:30 pm

This is the official notice of the Australian Science Communicators’ Annual General Meeting, to be held in Perth, Western Australia, on 30 November 2011. The AGM is being hosted by the ASC WA Branch. The AGM will be followed by an interactive science quiz night hosted by compere extraordinaire David Ellyard.

 Date: Wednesday 30 November 2011
Time: 6.00pm-7.15pm (ASC AGM), 7.30pm – 9.30pm (Science Quiz Night)
Venue: Rosie O’Grady’s, Cnr James & Milligan St, Northbridge, WA
ASC members: free (Only currently financial ASC members are eligible to attend the AGM)
Non-members: $10
Non member students: $5

Registration: http://ascnationalagm2011.eventbrite.com

The ASC AGM will run from 6.00-7:15pm in the Cab Bar and is open to ASC voting members only. The quiz night for all registered participants will begin at 7:30pm sharp in the Cab Bar.

Seats are limited so registration is essential.  The seating is 6 people per table. To confirm the members of your table, please email asc.events.wa@gmail.com.

 

The AGM is an opportunity for members to hear about the year’s events at the national level, and also to have their say about what should happen in the year to come. It also includes reports from the President and Treasurer, and news of the upcoming national conference. Members also have the chance to elect a new National President. Proposed agenda items, notices of motion and presidential nominations must be received by Wednesday 23 November.

Note that notices of motion require a proposer and a seconder, and nominations for President need to be agreed by the nominee.

Members unable to attend the AGM in person are able to give proxies to other members attending the meeting, or alternatively, send them to Sarah Lau, National Secretary (slau@chemcentre.wa.gov.au) before 5.00pm AWST on Wednesday 30 November 2011.

Minutes from the ASC AGM 2010, Adelaide, SA

AGENDA (as of 9 November 2011)

1. Confirmation of members attending, apologies
2. Notification of proxies
3. Minutes of 2010 AGM
4. President’s report
5. Treasurer’s report
a) presentation of statement of accounts
b) determination of annual membership fee
c) determination of capitation to be returned to branches
d) determination of honoraria
e) appointment of auditor
f)  appointment of public officer
g) preview of 2011 budget
6. Election of 2012 ASC President
7. Motions to amend the Constitution
8. Any other business

Motion to change the ASC Constitution – for ASC AGM 2011

1. Motion to change the Constitution – Motion made by Jesse Shore and seconded by Rob Morrison. We propose the constitution is amended as follows:

 [The proposed change to the wording in the revised clause is underlined.]

[Definition from clause 2.9: “Association” means Australian Science Communicators Incorporated.]

Section 5.4 of the constitution – ‘BRANCHES’

Current wording:

5.4.2 Branches may have their own constitutions, but wherever any discrepancy exists, the Constitution of the Association shall prevail.

 Proposed new wording

5.4.2 Branches may have their own rules or constitutions, but wherever any discrepancy exists, the Constitution of the Association shall prevail.

Reason for proposed amendment:
This minor change in wording acknowledges that the ASC branches, which are unincorporated bodies, are more likely to have their own rules than constitutions.
We want the branches to be aware they have the right to have rules and to encourage them to adopt rules if they haven’t done so already. The new wording still allows for branches to have constitutions and makes it clear that whether they have rules or constitutions, the Constitution of the Association is the overriding document.

Garrett and Heath on sustainability

Queensland’s Chief Scientist Dr Geoff Garrett and Queensland Solar City community engagement manager Julie Heath will be joining us for drinks at this September’s get-together. The Theme of the night will be Sustainability in Queensland – Science and the Environment.

Dr Garrett was appointed Queensland Chief Scientist from January 2011, after 8 years as Chief Executive and member of the Board of CSIRO.

The Queensland Solar City project is part of the Australian Government’s leading-edge Solar Cities program.

The project will trial a range of initiatives that aim to reduce wasteful energy usage, increase solar energy usage and cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50,000 tonnes.

What:

Sustainability in Queensland – Science and the Environment

When:

Wednesday 14th Spetember 2011, 6pm-8pm

Where:

Ship Inn, Cnr Stanley & Sidon Streets Southbank Parklands

Entry:

Free. Meals and drinks at bar prices

RSVP:

Please RSVP robbie[at]econnect.com.au ASAP so we can cater for numbers

Rally for Research – Adelaide

This article was originally published here with pictures and video.

In Australia at the moment there is a real fear that our Government (who are supposed to be on the left side of that political line) is going to cut $400 million from medical research budgets. To protest this rallies are being run in most Australian capital cities to advertise the role of scientists in the community and to show all scientists that collectively we have a voice that can be heard, you just have to start shouting.

A couple of days ago the rally in my city was held and whilst I couldn’t make it (due to teaching obligations) my good friend Thomas Tu, with whom I started Disease of the Week (on which he has also written a post about this) a few years ago, has been heavily involved. You can find a radio interview he did on one of Australia’s largest radio stations, Triple J, here (about a third of the way in) and there is a video of him giving a speech at the rally. He is standing on the steps of our city’s Parliament House.

So what can you do if you can’t make a rally or are in another country but want to show your support? Jump on the Discoveries need Dollars website or the Facebook page and ‘Like’ or follow the Twitter page and at all these places there is more info.

We are trying to make it a big issue to protect medical research, our livelihoods and encourage more students into science careers and it makes it very difficult when not only is money taken away but when its predicted to affect early career researchers hardest.

If you can help and you care about medical research I implore you to do as much as you can.

I’ll get off my high-horse now.

James Byrne

Associate Lecturer at University of Adelaide
Bacteriology PhD student and writer at Disease Prone

Send in the Scientists

A story that highlights: the apparent lack of scientific input into government policy. The effectiveness of anonymous dissident websites…

A proposal to amend the Federal Criminal Code Act could see a number of plants species become outlawed.

The proposed schedule reads as follows:

  • Any plant containing mescaline including any plant of the genus Lophophora.
  • Any plant containing DMT including any plant of the species Piptadenia peregrine
  • Salvia divinorum EPL. & Jativa (Diviners Sage)
  • Mitragyna speciosa Korth (Krantom)
  • Catha edulis Forsk (Khat)
  • Any species of the genus Ephedra which contains ephedrine
  • Any species of the genus Brugmansia Pers.
  • Any species of the genus Datura L.

The government (Attorney General’s department) sought consultation on the proposed schedule via its website. Industry was not offered input into the consultation paper.

Somehow the consultation paper was found and a concerned grower notified the peak industry body Nursery Garden Industry Australia (NGIA)

An anonymous dissident website was set up here www.gardenfreedom.com. This group consisted of concerned academics, gardeners and the nursery industry.

Through social media [and some press] this website captured 2,510 submissions.

The concern regarding the proposed drug schedule were ‘the blanket ban’ approach and the seemingly lack of scientific data, including plant taxa, to classify the precursors or drugs.

Also there was community and industry consensus that Brugmansia and Datura should be excluded.

Dr Anthony Kachenko (NGIA) was also concerned about the lack of scientific data and input from industry.

No comment was received from the Attorney General’s department regarding any of these concerns and no success in determining who was involved in the committee that put together the schedule, apart from the fact that it has been disbanded.

This committee put together a document called ‘Code of Practice for supply diversion into illicit drug manufacture.” The parties involved appear on the back page of that document and include Science Industry Australia. However, they have denied any input into the proposed drug schedule.

This schedule also has a potential impact on the Native Food Industry who use wattleseed from Acacia sp. Some Acacia sp contain DMT. Australian Native Food Industry Limited (ANFIL) has invested lots of $s in projects with RIRDC on the toxicological data of some Acacia sp. Was this data taken into consideration? ANFIL also raises its concern at a ‘blanket ban.’

Repeated requests [ongoing] to the Minister’s department via email and phone have failed to answer any of the concerns raised in submissions or who was involved in the committee that put together the proposed schedule. Maybe its time to initiate a FOI request?

Science more complex with bureaucracy?

First we have the complexities and uncertainties of science and then we introduce a bureaucratic process that can be inefficient and sometimes, incompetent.

I give you a prime example in the case of the Asian honey bee eradication program. Full story continues……

SENATE COMMITTEE ORDERS RECONVENING OF CCEPP TO CONTINUE ERADICATION PROGRAM FOR ASIAN HONEY BEE

Bureaucratic bungling and arguments about funding could possibly put us behind the eight ball in the eradication program for the Asian honey bee.

An interim report from the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport reference committee called Science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian Bee has made recommendations that could ensure an eradication program is
continued.

The matter of eradication of the Asian honey bee was referred to the senate to determine the scientific assumption that: Apis cerana could not be eradicated in Australia; that it would not spread, and, its impact on biodiversity, pollination and the European honey bee and the cost benefit of eradication.

The senate enquiry’s main concern was how, based on scientific involvement, a decision was reached to stop the honey bee eradication process, at the end of January 11. (Hansard 24 March p9)

There was a split between the advice coming from the Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests (CCEPP) on behalf of New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, Tasmania, Western Australia and, the Australian government, who were saying that it was not eradicable. And the view of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, and of the industry sector, AHBIC, who were saying that further work, if it were done, might allow them to make that call with more certainty.

This further work was not done and subsequently the people on the ground involved in the eradication program were made redundant. The senate committee has asked for a reconvening of the CCEPP.

The Hon Senator Heffernan, chair of the senate committee said, “This is a foreign invasion and it happens to be a bee.
“If it happened to be soldiers and tanks you would not be sitting around and having the argument you have had with the bees; you would get in and do something about it.

“You would say ‘Maybe we’re not going to be able to beat them,’ but at least you would have a bloody good go at trying.

He made an analogy to a fire in the Brindabella Ranges that raged out of control because of “bureaucratic garbage.” “This is the same sort of stuff.”

” ….[it] this has taken 18 months of prancing around.”

He also asked the committee to provide documentation about the physical events over the past 18 months when, “you were trying to eradicate this thing.’”

Of concern to the senate was the dropping of Dr Denis Anderson’s email address for inclusion at meetings of the committee. Dr Anderson is the most recognised Asian honey bee authority and his exclusion has meant that his input was not taken into consideration at the meeting in January where it was deemed that the bee was not eradicable even though Dr Anderson believed that that was yet to be determined and further data would enable a conclusion to that hypothesis.

That sentiment was also echoed by Dr Evan Sergeant, who recommended—and put in his report—that eradication be continued for another six months to collect data.

It is not quite clear from the senate hearing how a final consensus was reached for shutting down the eradication program when their was a call for collecting more data.

Senator Heffernan pointed out his concern that this collecting of data had not occurred and raised the question as to why.
“It appears to be a matter of money,” said chair Senator Heffernan

“For God’s sake—$5 million, is it, Senator Colbeck?

“They spend that on bloody fireworks on New Year’s Eve, for God’s sake.

“This is about the future of the plant world and the food supply in Australia.

“It is a disgrace – a bureaucratic blubber.”

This view was supported by Dr Whitten, Chairman of The Wheen Foundation, a not-for-profit Company which supports research and development to improve profitability of beekeepers and pollination-dependent industries, who commented that:

“…the European honey bee has probably been the most valuable insect ever imported to Australia, and by contrast the Asian bee I would regard as perhaps the worst exotic insect ever to establish in Australia…I believe no stone should be left unturned in our effort to eradicate it.”

The Asian honey bee incursion at Cairns has had, and will continue to have if not eradicated, serious consequences for Australia.

He went on further to say that the presence of the bee at Cairns has already led to the suspension of trade in live bees between the US and Australia, valued at some $5 million annually. Canada is currently reviewing its trade in live bees with Australia and has indicated that it will be urging Australia to continue the eradication effort otherwise it too will suspend trade in live bees.

Other countries are also likely to follow suit. If the bee is not eradicated it is likely that it will spread to most parts of the country that the European honey bee has inhabited. The subsequent wide spread of Asian honey bees is likely to have a number of impacts on Australia, such as, in order of the most to least importance: the environment and biodiversity, the beekeeping industry, human health and society, pollination and trade.

Dr Colin Grant, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry who was at the hearing said, “Let me make it very clear: we approached all the industry sectors that are dependent on pollination, and not one of them was prepared to provide assistive funding to this exercise—not one.”

Professor Bob Williamson secretary for science policy at the Australian Academy of Science, said that the report was welcoming particularly the view that further information be obtained to determine whether the Asian honey bee is eradicable. He reiterated that evidence-based policy is important for policy development.

He has asked for the appointment of an independent senior scientific advisor to all major government departments, which would, ….”remove the need to have these sorts of matters referred to Parliament.”

Professor Ben Oldroyd who is a professor of behavioural genetics in the social insects lab at the University of Sydney, welcomed the delay.

“There has not been enough time to be confident about the direction of trends that is, we do not know with confidence if the number of new finds is increasing or decreasing per unit effort,” he said.

He also said there are technologies which might prove superior to ‘bee lining’ for locating or destroying nests, which is the method used to date. For example, it’s possible to attach a transponder to a worker. The flying worker can then be followed by radar, leading the eradication team to the nest. Pheromone lures can be used to attract and catch drones.”

An odour-detecting dog in Cairns has now been validated as another way of detecting the Asian bee.

(some material courtesy of AusSMC)

Cribb in the Canberra Times today

A terrific op-ed from Julian Cribb in the Canberra Times today which made me think about the IA conference last week. The impact of science on policy is perhaps the biggest issue in science communication in Australia and globally right now. Yet it’s one that is probably hard for IA to catalyse given it’s a government program.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/give-scientists-the-freedom-to-tell-the-truth-and-then-listen/2126645.aspx?storypage=0

Science has been marginalised by governments for too long and needs a strong national voice.
The evidence is mounting that Australian science is once more lost in the dark ages of political neglect and disfavour.
To the average Australian that might not seem to matter very much, but the more thoughtful may no doubt reflect on the likely cost to the nation of not understanding our own environment, falling behind other advanced countries and not making national decisions on a sound evidential base…
One of the contributing reasons to the long, slow slide into marginality of Australian science is its perpetual inability to speak out clearly, frankly, forcefully and often about the importance of science to the future of Australia and the dangers of ignoring it…
…But when you look at who speaks for Australian science, you find, almost always, they are on the government payroll in one way or another. The academies, the universities, the funding bodies, the science agencies, the Cooperative Research Centres are all beholden to government funding and fearful of its loss should they earn political displeasure by saying the things science often has to say, which are not always pleasing to the political ear. Only the Federation of Scientific and Technological Societies has a relatively independent voice, and it is neither very loud nor forceful…
Julian then talks about a potential solution.
________

Niall Byrne

Creative Director
Science in Public

82 Hudsons Road, Spotswood Vic 3015
(PO Box 2076 Spotswood VIC 3015)
03 9398-1416, 03 9078-5398, 0417 131 977

niall@scienceinpublic.com.au
Twitter scienceinpublic
www.scienceinpublic.com.au

NBCF and PCFA Annual Research Update

Annual Research Update 2011

Presented by the National Breast Cancer Foundation and the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.

Hear about the latest advances in breast and prostate cancer research from Australia’s leading scientists.

Hosted by Julie Mc Crossin.

Friday 4th February 2011

10am – 3pm

NAB Auditorium, Garvan Institute

384 Victoria Road , Darlinghurst 2010, (enter via Burton Street)

RSVP to Jessica Harris by Friday 21st January

researchinfo [at] nbcf.org.au

or call 8098 4800

For more information see: http://www.nbcf.org.au/page.asp?category_id=3&page_id=471

ASC-list Digest, Vol 74, Issue 2

Let me second Phil Dooley’s thanks to Jason Major for the link to the Scientific American blog entry. That is the one on the evolution of science journalism and science communication, generally.

The piece begins with a discussion of the ‘phatic’ and the ‘conceptual’ aspects of talking about science. Those areas correspond to the ‘relational’ and ‘informational’ aspects of communication, according to linguists and psychologists, such as Gregory Bateson (Margaret Meade’s husband).

That has been the windmill that I have been tilting at for the past 25 years — trying to draw attention to the ‘relational’ part of communication about science, technology, environment, innovation, etc. You will see it in my piece in the recent ASC newsletter, Scope, ‘What has trust got to do with it?’

I have been urged to write and say / podcast more on the topic. So, I have started a blog — http://expertstatus.wordpress.com/.

Am trying to keep readership in the single figures, though … ;-)

Will

Will Rifkin, PhD Director, ALTC New Media for Science Project Administered in the Faculty of Science, UNSW willrifkin@unsw.edu.au / willrifkinphd@gmail.com 0402 612 586 mobile http://will-rifkin-phd.wikispaces.com

On 07/01/2011, at 6:44 PM, <asc-list-request@lists.asc.asn.au> wrote:

3. Re: Topic that might spark some Xmas conversation (Phil Dooley)

ASC mailing list etiquette

I hope you all have had a pleasant summer break and I envy those of you who are still on holiday.

Some members have contacted me with concerns about content appearing on our two mailing lists. It seems timely to remind people of the different uses of each list.

ASC has two electronic mailing lists to connect those members with email.

* ASC-list http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-list – for discussing science communication issues and promoting event. * ASC-media http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-media – for press releases and self promotion.

Anyone can join the lists as observers. Only financial ASC members can post messages to the lists.

Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between an issue, event, or announcements of general interest (especially job adverts) with self promotion. Some messages on the ASC-list can be interpreted as disguised press releases although they may contain a note of general interest.

If you have a message that is mainly self promotion, but with a touch of general interest, post the full message on the ASC-media list. If you feel that your topic or news is truly suited for the ASC-list then post short note about the pertinent point on the ASC-list with a mention that the full story and related information is accessible on ASC-media.

In this way we can maintain the value of each list, keep the faith of our readers and reduce the number of messages many of us do not want to read and then have to spend time deleting.

Cheers, Jesse

Jesse Shore

President, Australian Science Communicators, 2011

http://www.asc.asn.au/ http://www.asc.asn.au/

Jesse Shore PhD Science Communicator http://www.prismaticsciences.com/picts/email_img.jpg P: (02) 9810 2328 M: 0415 841 276 E: jesse@prismaticsciences.com W: http://www.prismaticsciences.com/ www.prismaticsciences.com

_______________________________________________ ASC-list mailing list list@asc.asn.au http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115