tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/crc-1369/articlesCRC – The Conversation2021-12-09T13:35:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1722112021-12-09T13:35:28Z2021-12-09T13:35:28ZColorful sweets may look tasty, but some researchers question whether synthetic dyes may pose health risks to your colon and rectum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436174/original/file-20211207-27-1n10fff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2121%2C1412&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Early-onset colorectal cancer rates have been increasing since the 1990s.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/homemade-christmas-gingerbread-cookies-royalty-free-image/878594696">kajakiki/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Early-onset colorectal cancer incidence among the young, defined as those under age 50, has been <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1155%2F2019%2F9841295">rising globally</a> since the early 1990s. Rates for colon and rectal cancers are expected to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1756">increase by 90% and 124%</a>, respectively, by 2030.</p>
<p>One suspected reason behind this trend is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002000350X">increased global consumption</a> of a <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1053%2Fj.gastro.2017.02.015">Westernized diet</a> that consists heavily of red and processed meats, added sugar and refined grains. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892">Sixty percent of the Standard American Diet</a>, also known as “SAD,” is made up of ultra-processed food such as industrial baked sweets, soft drinks and processed meat. SAD is associated with an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34308">increased risk of colorectal cancer</a>. </p>
<p>One aspect of ultra-processed foods I’m concerned about is how colorful they are. This characteristic is on full display in many delicious foods and treats present during the year-end holidays. However, many of the colors that make up candy canes, sugar cookies and even cranberry sauce and roast ham, are synthetic. And there’s some evidence that these artificial food dyes may trigger cancer-causing processes in the body.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Rainbow-colored gum drops in a glass bowl against a white background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435965/original/file-20211206-23-18akuko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">While artificial food coloring may look pretty, potential health risks require further study.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/rainbow-colored-candy-royalty-free-image/171363813">cmannphoto/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zHSS6mQAAAAJ&hl=en">director of the Center for Colon Cancer Research</a> at the University of South Carolina, I have been studying the effects of these synthetic food dyes on colorectal cancer development. While research on the potential cancer risk of synthetic food dyes is only just starting, I believe that you may want to think twice before you reach for that colorful treat this holiday season. </p>
<h2>What are synthetic food dyes?</h2>
<p>The food industry uses synthetic dyes because they make food look better. The first food dyes were <a href="https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/coal-tar-food-coloring-perkin">created from coal tar</a> in the late 1800s. Today, they are often synthesized from a chemical derived from petroleum called naphthalene to make a final product called an <a href="https://psiberg.com/azo-dyes-history-uses-synthesis/">azo dye</a>.</p>
<p>Food manufacturers prefer synthetic dyes over natural dyes like beet extract because they are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rainbow-of-food-dyes-in-our-grocery-aisles-has-a-dark-side/2011/03/21/AFyIwaYB_story.html">cheaper, brighter and last longer</a>. While manufacturers have developed hundreds of synthetic food dyes over the past century, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2016.1274431">majority of them are toxic</a>. Only nine are approved for use in food under U.S. <a href="https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additive-inventories/summary-color-additives-use-united-states-foods-drugs-cosmetics-and-medical-devices#table1B">Food and Drug Administration</a> policy, and even fewer pass <a href="https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/why-are-some-food-additives-that-are-banned-in-europe-still-used-in-the-us/">European Union</a> regulations.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6FPnag_rvU8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Food manufacturers in the U.S. started using synthetic dyes to standardize the coloring of their products as a marketing strategy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What drives colorectal cancer?</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013">DNA damage</a> is the primary driver of colorectal cancer. When DNA damage occurs on cancer driver genes, it can result in a mutation that tells the cell to divide uncontrollably and turn cancerous.</p>
<p>Another driver of colorectal cancer is <a href="https://doi.org/10.2174/1871530320666200909092908">inflammation</a>. Inflammation occurs when the immune system sends out inflammatory cells to begin healing an injury or capture disease-causing pathogens. When this inflammation persists over time, it can harm otherwise healthy cells by releasing molecules called <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.4103%2F0973-7847.70902">free radicals</a> that can damage DNA. Another type of molecule called <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffimmu.2018.01270">cytokines</a> can prolong inflammation and drive increased cell division and cancer development in the gut when there isn’t an injury to heal. </p>
<p>Long-term poor dietary habits can lead to a <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/all-about-inflammation">simmering low-grade inflammation</a> that doesn’t produce noticeable symptoms, even while inflammatory molecules continue to damage otherwise healthy cells.</p>
<h2>Synthetic food dyes and cancer</h2>
<p>Although none of the FDA-approved synthetic food colors are classified as carcinogens, currently available research points to potential health risks I <a href="https://cspinet.org/resource/food-dyes-rainbow-risks">and others</a> find concerning.</p>
<p>For example, the bacteria in your gut can <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.2741/400">break down synthetic dyes</a> into molecules that are known to cause cancer. More research is needed on how the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01467-x">microbiome</a> interacts with synthetic food coloring and potential cancer risk.</p>
<p>Studies have shown that artificial food dyes can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/dna.2010.1181">bind to the DNA</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2015.04.006">proteins</a> inside cells. There is also some evidence that synthetic dyes can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2017.08.010">stimulate the body’s inflammatory machinery</a>. Both of these mechanisms may pose a problem for colon and rectal health.</p>
<p>Synthetic food dyes have been found to <a href="https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.35.547">damage DNA in rodents</a>. This is supported by unpublished data from my research team showing that Allura Red, or Red 40, and Tartrazine, or Yellow 5, can cause DNA damage in colon cancer cells with increased dosages and length of exposure in vitro in a controlled lab environment. Our results will need to be replicated in animal and human models before we can say that these dyes directly caused DNA damage, however.</p>
<p><iframe id="XcyvS" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/XcyvS/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><iframe id="7wQQR" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7wQQR/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Finally, artificial food coloring may be of particular concern for children. It’s known that children are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0151">more vulnerable to environmental toxins</a> because their bodies are still developing. I and others believe that this concern may extend to <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/report/health-effects-assessment-potential-neurobehavioral-effects-synthetic-food">synthetic food dyes</a>, especially considering their prevalence in children’s food. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922816651621">2016 study</a> found that over 40% of food products marketed toward children in one major supermarket in North Carolina contained artificial food coloring. More research needs to be done to examine how repeated exposure to artificial food dyes may affect children.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Child eating a donut with blue frosting." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435966/original/file-20211206-17-zfqrkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many foods marketed toward kids contain synthetic food coloring.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/enjoying-my-dessert-royalty-free-image/898216164">FluxFactory/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Lowering your risk of colorectal cancer</h2>
<p>A few treats during the holidays won’t cause colorectal cancer. But a long-term diet of processed foods might. While more research is needed on the link between synthetic food dyes and cancer, there are evidence-based steps you can take now to <a href="https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/six-ways-to-lower-your-risk-for-colon-cancer.html">reduce your risk of colorectal cancer</a>.</p>
<p>One way is to get screened for colon cancer. Another is to increase your physical activity. Finally, you can eat a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31198">healthy</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx171">diet</a> with more whole grains and produce and less alcohol and red and processed meat. Though this means eating fewer of the colorful, ultra-processed foods that may be plentiful during the holidays, your gut will thank you in the long run.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172211/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorne J. Hofseth receives funding from the National Cancer Institute.</span></em></p>Sixty percent of the Standard American Diet consists of ultra-processed food, which isn’t great for colon health. Researchers are looking into whether artificial food colors play a role.Lorne J. Hofseth, Professor and Associate Dean for Research, College of Pharmacy, University of South CarolinaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/774782017-05-11T02:56:47Z2017-05-11T02:56:47ZBudget 2017: a glimmer of support for innovation and advanced manufacturing<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s 2015 <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-12-07/national-innovation-and-science-agenda-having-significant-impact-one-year">National Innovation and Science Agenda</a> was a call to arms for Australia’s research and industry sectors to collaborate and drive our economy.</p>
<p>One and a half years on, you’d be excused for thinking a few pages of notes were missing from Budget 2017. Specifically no comment was made about the vision of where our great “ideas boom” was taking us - setting the scene to unite industry and researchers alike.</p>
<p>For manufacturing there was a glimmer of hope in the <a href="http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/sinodinos/media-releases/new-investment-advanced-manufacturing-and-research-infrastructure">announcement</a> of A$100 million to boost innovation, skills and employment in advanced manufacturing.</p>
<p>It addresses people, know-how, process and partnerships. If connected into a strategic plan there could be benefits for businesses as the manufacturing sector redeploys into new activity.</p>
<p>However, it does appear narrowly focused on the here and now for closed and closing automotive manufacturers.</p>
<p>In the absence of linkage with the <a href="https://www.innovation.gov.au/page/agenda">National Innovation and Science Agenda</a>, the pending <a href="https://www.innovation.gov.au/page/innovation-and-science-australia">2030 Roadmap from Innovation and Science Australia</a>, and comment on the <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/assistance/research-and-development-tax-incentive/review-of-the-randd-tax-incentive">research and development tax incentive review</a>, the A$100 million may be an expensive band-aid.</p>
<h2>Capital upgrades</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/sinodinos/media-releases/new-investment-advanced-manufacturing-and-research-infrastructure">funding announcement</a> refers to A$47.5 million for a new Advanced Manufacturing Growth Fund to support South Australian and Victorian manufacturers for capital upgrades to “make their businesses more competitive through innovative processes and equipment”.</p>
<p>My experience of project work with manufacturing companies is that capital cost of equipment (capital expenditure, or “CapEx”) has never been a roadblock to growth and success.</p>
<p>When the business case stacks up, CapEx is easily justified. The business case is built upon having the right people and know-how in the business.</p>
<p>In isolation the drive to purchase new equipment presents no value to business, and may even lead to stranded assets. But coupled with people and know-how, opportunities may come.</p>
<p>It’s important to recognise that right now, existing manufacturers are looking at how to utilise and/or redeploy their existing assets. In particular the automotive parts manufacturers are seeking new opportunities that match with existing equipment.</p>
<p>An example is a company that I am working with, <a href="http://precisioncomponents.com.au/">Precision Components</a> in South Australia. They are redeploying their large metal presses previously used in car component manufacturing to create components for capturing solar energy at <a href="http://heliostat.com.au/">HeliostatSA</a>. It’s a project that has contributed to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/car-workers-being-transitioned-to-solar-thermal-jobs-in-sa-macfarlane/news-story/fdb9e8a20005686a5a164d284557e2d8">export capability</a> for HeliostatSA. </p>
<p>Redeployment is the focus for many businesses today, not new equipment.</p>
<h2>Small scale research projects</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/sinodinos/media-releases/new-investment-advanced-manufacturing-and-research-infrastructure">funding announcement</a> refers to A$4 million to support small scale and pilot research projects in advanced manufacturing, administered through the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre.</p>
<p>This seems like a good move.</p>
<p>Boosting innovation requires broadening the base of businesses looking to grow, and collaboration with university research programs is one way to achieve this. Small grants build confidence in collaborative partnerships, and help to clarify what the innovation is and its future return on investment.</p>
<p>For example, the government’s <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/assistance/innovation-connections">Innovation Connections scheme</a> has had success in seeding innovation and collaboration. </p>
<p>A recent recipient of an Innovation Connections grant, company <a href="http://www.sentek.com.au/">Sentek Pty Ltd</a>, is utilising this scheme to fund new product development, and to underpin justification for future and larger investment. I am collaborating with Sentek on this project.</p>
<h2>Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Projects</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/sinodinos/media-releases/new-investment-advanced-manufacturing-and-research-infrastructure">funding announcement</a> refers to A$20 million under the Cooperative Research Centre – Projects initiative for larger scale advanced manufacturing research projects.</p>
<p>This funding should be warmly received.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/assistance/cooperative-research-centres-programme">CRC program</a> links researchers and industry, with the aim of delivering economic value to the industry partner and the sector more broadly. This scheme funds the real costs of research, develops skills in people, and incentivises transitioning knowledge out of the university.</p>
<p>The newly formed <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/assistance/cooperative-research-centres-programme/cooperative-research-centres-projects-crc-ps">CRC Projects scheme</a> is in its infancy, with industry firmly in the driving seat for administering the projects.</p>
<p>From the <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/Assistance/Cooperative-Research-Centres-Programme/Cooperative-Research-Centres-Projects-CRC-Ps/Compliant-Applications">first two rounds of funding</a> under the CRC Projects, a total of 28 projects have been funded. Each project has seen a co-investment from industry, universities, other research institutes, and the federal government.</p>
<p>Crunching the numbers for the funded projects shows, on average, the government invested A$2.04 million per project. This indicates that the new A$20 million of funding could support around an additional ten projects. This will stimulate activity and add value to our advanced manufacturing sector.</p>
<h2>Innovation Labs</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/sinodinos/media-releases/new-investment-advanced-manufacturing-and-research-infrastructure">funding announcement</a> refers to A$10 million to establish Innovation Labs in South Australia and Victoria to serve industry.</p>
<p>It’s difficult to know what this means in reality.</p>
<p>Perhaps the purpose is to provide facilities for early stage innovation to be tested at minimal expense, and reduce the risk of the business making significant investment in infrastructure. </p>
<p>Perhaps it will allow researchers or companies to shore up concepts before seeking investment and raising capital. Maybe existing facilities will seek financial support to expand their remit across a diverse advanced manufacturing sector.</p>
<p>A topical example relates to additive manufacturing – generally known as 3D printing. Businesses producing 3D-printed products need a testing ground to conduct certification and accreditation of products prior to sale. The Innovation Labs could fill this void, and complete the link between laboratory research and commercial product.</p>
<h2>Engineering excellence</h2>
<p>The funding announcement refers to A$5 million investment in engineering student research at universities, technology institutions and in industry to maintain the flow of highly trained engineers to the automotive design and engineering sector.</p>
<p>At the heart of innovation are people.</p>
<p>Engineers represent one discipline that contributes to the pipeline of innovation. An investment to see the continual training of excellent engineers may address the loss of traditional career pathways.</p>
<p>Perhaps the funds will aid in restructuring of engineering education towards emerging opportunities in the health and medical, agriculture, renewable energy and other sectors.</p>
<p>As more details come to light in the coming weeks and months, the Turnbull government’s vision for Australia’s manufacturing future may become clearer.</p>
<p>But the sense from the manufacturers themselves is that they will just get on and do it anyway.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77478/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Drew Evans receives funding from Precision Components and Sentek Pty Ltd. A component of this funding is through the CRC and Innovation Connections schemes. While Drew is an employee of the University of South Australia, the views expressed in the article are his expert personal opinions, not necessarily those of his employer.</span></em></p>Budget 2017 has allocated A$100 million to boost innovation and advanced manufacturing. But can it fill the hole left by automotive industry closures?Drew Evans, Associate Professor of Energy & Advanced Manufacturing, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/551522016-02-23T02:14:19Z2016-02-23T02:14:19ZCSIRO climate cuts will trash a decade of hard work with the Bureau of Meteorology and universities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112456/original/image-20160223-16451-6wbj0o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">CSIRO's decision a decade ago to merge its marine and atmospheric research set the stage for a national climate research plan.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACSIRO_ScienceImage_7986_The_CSIRO_Marine_and_Atmospheric_Research_facility_in_Hobart.jpg">CSIRO/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A dozen years ago, climate science in Australia was academically excellent, but was being done in small groups, none able by itself to answer the large, complex scientific questions that were beginning to confront Australia, such as understanding the adverse trends emerging in temperature and rainfall. </p>
<p>We weren’t alone – all countries were grappling with their own issues, as the scale of the climate challenge was made starkly clear by a succession of reports from the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>. </p>
<p>So, early in the new century, a handful of people leading the key separate parts of Australia’s system began working together to create a truly strategic, truly national climate science capability. </p>
<p>CSIRO led from the front. Its executives knew that CSIRO alone could not meet the nation’s climate science needs, so they worked with government departments to support the development of a larger national architecture.</p>
<p>Gradually, the project took shape. In 2005, CSIRO merged its atmospheric and marine research divisions, creating a unified division focusing on a single national climate modelling system, rather than two separate ones. Sensible move.</p>
<p>The following year, CSIRO championed integration of all state and national marine observing systems into one federal system, the <a href="http://imos.org.au/">Integrated Marine Observing System</a>.</p>
<p>CSIRO also turned its attention overseas, joining with the Bureau of Meteorology to adopt the UK Met Office’s state-of-art <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/modelling-systems/unified-model">Unified Atmospheric Model</a> as our national weather forecasting model, for an immediate improvement in forecasting skill. </p>
<p>Since this model could be run in climate mode as well as weather mode, we now had both agencies’ scientists supporting a single, world-leading atmospheric climate model that was also the national weather forecasting model. It was a superbly efficient outcome. The pieces of a truly national climate science program were falling into place.</p>
<h2>Universities on board</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, in 2007 CSIRO and the Bureau launched a joint venture now called the <a href="http://www.cawcr.gov.au/">Collaboration for Australian Weather and Climate Research</a>. The idea was to create a single large government-funded climate science program that, for the first time, would be easy for top university climate scientists to engage with.</p>
<p>CSIRO already had a fruitful collaboration with Antarctic climate researchers at the University of Tasmania, but what was needed was for all universities doing significant climate science to become engaged in the national endeavour.</p>
<p>This was harder than it sounds; government research agencies are typically driven by specific missions related to the agency’s charter, whereas university research often focuses on investigating science questions framed by individual specialisations and academic prowess.</p>
<p>As chief of CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research Division at the time, I was seconded into the federal Department of Climate Change to draft a blueprint for a national climate research agenda that would include universities along with government scientists. It gave rise to the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/australian-climate-change-science-framework">National Framework for Climate Change Science</a>, which was adopted by the Rudd government in 2009 and still remains current.</p>
<p>With the framework in place, CSIRO, the Bureau and universities signed up to use Australia’s new <a href="http://nci.org.au">National Computational Infrastructure </a> for climate research. In 2011, the Australian Research Council funded the creation of the <a href="http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/articles/coecss.html">Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science</a>, which drew together the best university-based climate research. With everything now in place in 2012 the federal government turned the 2009 climate science framework into an <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/plan-implementing-climate-change-science">implementation plan</a> to deliver on the research goals. </p>
<p>More than a decade in the making, Australia finally had a truly national, unified collaboration set up to deliver as fruitfully as possible on our nation’s climate science needs.</p>
<p>All of that hard work, planning and organisation is now at risk.</p>
<h2>Climate cuts</h2>
<p>The implementation plan contains a series of tables listing the priority policy questions to be answered, and who is best placed to deliver the scientific research needed to answer them. CSIRO appears in every one. If you mentally remove the word CSIRO from the document, it’s clear that if CSIRO leaves the climate science stage (and while the precise number of job cuts <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-planning-to-pare-back-share-climate-job-cuts-20160222-gn08w4.html">remains uncertain</a> it is set to be significant) it will leave Australia’s federally endorsed climate science agenda gutted, and totally unachievable. </p>
<p>This brings us to the misconception <a href="https://theconversation.com/csiro-bosss-failed-logic-over-climate-science-could-waste-billions-in-taxes-54249">promulgated by CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall</a> as a rationale for the CSIRO cuts: that human-induced climate change is now confirmed, so there is now less need for climate science and more need for research into adaptation and mitigation measures. </p>
<p>The implementation plan makes it clear that mitigation and adaptation would also suffer badly from CSIRO’s climate cuts, as they would no longer be built on the national climate science framework set up precisely to enable and support those activities.</p>
<p>CSIRO was the main agency behind Australia’s world-leading climate science framework – a setup that serves this nation’s climate science policy needs superbly, and one of the areas in which Australia punches above its weight internationally.</p>
<p>Why would CSIRO retreat from one of its own (and Australia’s) most effective scientific endeavours? Why stop now, after working tirelessly for more than a decade to create a unified national platform that provides essential advice to local, state and federal governments, as well as industry, commerce and the environmental sector? I don’t know. It makes no sense. </p>
<p>CSIRO’s decision to pull away from climate change science is against the national interest. It should not proceed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55152/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Ayers served as Chief of CSIRO Atmospheric Research from 2002 to 2005, and Chief of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research from 2005 to 2009. From 2009 he served as Director of Meteorology and CEO of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology until his premature departure due to ill health in 2012. He has no current affiliation with either agency or the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.</span></em></p>CSIRO was instrumental in creating a unified plan for all of Australia’s climate research. The latest round of cuts would see that collaboration fall apart.Gregory Ayers, Atmospheric Scientist and Advisory Board Chair, School of Biological Sciences, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/418272015-05-18T03:25:46Z2015-05-18T03:25:46ZAustralian science is no better off after the 2015 budget<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81973/original/image-20150518-25407-1dlppa0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who'll use the equipment if funding for researchers is cut back?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sk8geek/8318058885/">Flickr/Steven Lilley</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For science, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/federal-budget-2015">2015 federal budget</a> is merely a continuation of 2014. The damage that was done has not been undone.</p>
<p>The same threats and uncertainty continue. Behind all the hollow words of support, there is no substantial recognition of the value of science for the knowledge that it brings, for its role as a driving force of economic growth and innovation, or for the empowerment that it gives to individuals to understand and shape a 21st-century future for themselves.</p>
<p>As Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, has pointed out, almost every OECD country has a <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/391653,chief-scientist-calls-for-dramatic-changes-to-innovation-policy.aspx">plan for the strategic growth</a> of its scientific enterprise and to facilitate its translation into technology, innovation and economic development. Every country, that is, except Australia and Portugal.</p>
<p>Australia, instead, will bank the nation’s long-term prosperity on a <a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-budget-2015-small-business-wins-in-grab-for-confidence-41670">boost to small business spending</a> on items under A$20,000 encouraged by some tax breaks. </p>
<p>The wrangles around the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-national-collaborative-research-infrastructure-strategy-ncris-38837">NCRIS</a>) – the A$2 billion system of national research facilities – is symptomatic of the gaps in the government’s understanding of science, how it works, and the impact of decisions on it.</p>
<p>Prior to the 2015 budget, it took a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vicechancellors-blast-dumb-decision-to-axe-research-funding-if-uni-fee-laws-dont-pass-20150311-1406xq.html">concerted public campaign</a> to bring home the level of destruction that the government was about to unleash by apparently regarding NCRIS funding as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-infrastructure-funding-is-being-held-hostage-by-government-38423">tool for brinkmanship</a>. </p>
<h2>All very Yes Minister</h2>
<p>Following the budget, the price of a mere two-year extension of funding was revealed as a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/13/4234924.htm">A$300 million cut</a> to university research block grants. This is a version of the Yes Minister comedy in which the hospital is built but no patients admitted. We have saved our research infrastructure by cutting the funds that support its use, in a form of budget cannibalism. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Eyf97LAjjcY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And does the government really think that the highly skilled staff on which NCRIS relies, having been roused by the spectre of a near-death experience, will stick around to see what will happen in two years time? The global <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-i-turned-down-a-decra-to-work-in-the-united-states-37264">mobility of expertise</a> is a hallmark of the 21st-century global economy. Some prompt action will be required following the NCRIS review to avert this new form of brain drain. </p>
<p>The past two budgets seem to be channelling a commonly held but misguided view that basic science research is a luxury that can be cut back in hard times. But what about the translation of science research into innovation and economic growth? For most developed countries this is an imperative. For Australia, with the collapse of its mining income, you would have thought it even more critical. </p>
<p>The government, through its minister for science, <a href="http://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/macfarlane/media-releases/investing-science-research-and-energy-australias-competitive">claims</a> that the 2015 budget reflects a strategic aim to “create stronger connections between research and industry and maximise Australia’s competitiveness”.</p>
<p>This is an extraordinary statement from a government that has not only slashed funding to the CSIRO over the past two years, but cut its key university-industry program, the Co-operative Research Centre (CRC) program, by A$80 million in 2014 – or around 20% – and then a further A$27 million in 2015. </p>
<p>One is tempted to ask what the government knows about the forthcoming <a href="http://www.business.gov.au/grants-and-assistance/Collaboration/CRC/CRC-Programme-Review/Pages/default.aspx">CRC review</a> that we don’t. Will it really be saying that 25% of what the CRCs were doing was not needed? That would be a brave call, indeed one might say a “courageous” call.</p>
<h2>The need for engagement</h2>
<p>Australia is recognised, on all available comparative data, to have one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-national-science-strategy-is-good-for-australia-40254">worst levels of engagement</a> in the world between science research and industry.</p>
<p>Given the need to transform the economy following the collapse in mining, if there were any efficiencies available you’d imagine that a strategic government would invest them in facilitating this engagement. The CRC program certainly isn’t the only avenue available for that. It’s just that the 2014/15 and 2015/16 budgets reduced funding to all the other schemes as well.</p>
<p>In politics, scientists are urged to be statesperson-like, play the game and talk to such positives as can be found in the latest two budgets. Indeed there are those who have risen to that call, praising small mercies through clenched teeth.</p>
<p>But the message for science from these budgets has to be that we’re on our own. Both the budgets and budget replies show the paucity of understanding and strategic thinking in regard to science. </p>
<p>The public and the politicians don’t get a very strategic view of science. It is a bionic eye, a cure for cancer, a new exoplanet, quantum computers, nanomaterials etc. Science doesn’t make such a big thing about its synergies with engineering and IT, with the social sciences or with business and innovation. It somewhat takes these connections for granted.</p>
<p>The Chief Scientist, in his discussion papers and allied initiatives, gives these connections a central place. He focuses on the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2015/05/statement-committing-to-science/">broader role of STEM</a> and its relationship with and benefits for Australian society, its education system and the economy.</p>
<p>It is this kind of vision, rather than particular areas of research, that will build priority for science in the minds of the public and politicians. Perhaps these last two budgets will be an inspiration for scientists to put more energy into this task. Clearly no-one else will do it for us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41827/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Rice is the Executive Director of the Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS).
The opinions expressed in this article, however, are his own, and do not necessarily reflect
those of the ACDS</span></em></p>The federal government’s 2015 budget has done little to restore confidence in the government’s support for science in Australia.John Rice, Honorary Professor, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/328092014-10-10T08:16:21Z2014-10-10T08:16:21ZA 20-year plan welcomed for Australia in the Antarctic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61371/original/mm2d2jwk-1412926476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A brighter future for Australia's Antarctic research.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmichel67/11257027656">Flickr/Christopher Michel</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Antarctic is a vast and inhospitable place with a time scale all of its own.
For the scientists who travel there to carry out research, a project can sometimes take years to plan and even longer to conduct.</p>
<p>So the release today of a <a href="http://20yearplan.antarctica.gov.au/final-report">20-year strategic plan for Australia’s Antarctic</a> program – and the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2014/mr20141010.html">enthusiastic response</a> to it by the Federal Government – is very welcome.</p>
<p>The plan, authored by <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tony-press-991">Professor Tony Press</a>, emphasises the value of Australia’s research effort to the Australian community and the importance of conducting world-leading research to provide stewardship and protection of the Antarctic environment.</p>
<p>It envisions a world-leading science program underpinned by reliable, well-funded, end-to-end logistics and transport infrastructure.</p>
<p>Most of the high-priority research identified in the plan is not in fact done at Australia’s permanent <a href="http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/station-updates">Antarctic stations</a>, but on icebreaking research vessels and in the deep field.</p>
<p>So while the Antarctic stations are key parts of our infrastructure requirements, the key to successful Antarctic research lies in the ability to reach the deepest depths of the oceans or the remotest parts of inland Antarctica where the oldest ice can be sampled.</p>
<h2>Funds have been tight for previous research</h2>
<p>In recent years Australia’s ability to access these areas has been compromised. Successive years of budget cuts to the Australian Antarctic Division (<a href="http://www.antarctica.gov.au/">AAD</a>) have squeezed the science program because the fixed costs of running the Antarctic stations, ships and air link have taken up a larger slice of the budget, leaving less money for science.</p>
<p>This means the Antarctic program is currently able to undertake fewer than 10 days a year of marine science to conduct vital research.</p>
<p>This in no way detracts from the efforts of the AAD and its staff – rather it is a reflection of their present-day operating environment.</p>
<p>So the decision by the Federal Government to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-08/tenders-out-to-replace-antarctic-supply-ship-aurora-australis/4872754">replace the ageing Aurora Australis</a> is very welcome, but as with Australia’s new national research vessel, the <a href="http://csirofrvblog.com/">RV Investigator</a>, funds to operate it are essential.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61370/original/g59qzfc8-1412926180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">RV Investigator was built to be out at sea longer than is currently budgeted for.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/RV-Investigator-arrives.aspx">CSIRO</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As things stand there only operating funds for the RV Investigator for 180 days at sea per year – not the 300 days it is designed for.</p>
<p>It makes no sense for Australia’s world-class research vessels to be tied up at a wharf in Hobart when they should be at sea in support of Australia’s marine research effort.</p>
<h2>Australia’s long reach</h2>
<p>Australia has the third-largest marine estate of any country in the world and a responsibility to understand and manage it appropriately. Of course, there are also many good news stories to be told.</p>
<p>The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, which I lead, was refunded for A$25 million over five years. An additional A$24 million of funding for developing Hobart as an “Antarctic Gateway” have been very welcome.</p>
<p>The 20-year strategic plan is another bright light on our horizon, providing a set of clear recommendations on how to coordinate funding for Australia’s Antarctic research effort to enable long-term, strategic science planning. </p>
<p>The flow-on benefits from a long-term approach to Antarctic science are potentially enormous. The Antarctic and marine research sector is a major driver in the Tasmanian economy, and the report’s ambitious plan to grow Tasmania as a “gateway” to Antarctica is very welcome.</p>
<p>Presently, the sector contributes about A$200 million annually to Tasmania’s Gross State Product, a number which is multiplied several times over when the flow-on effects to local and national businesses are taken into account.</p>
<p>The presence of Australia’s Antarctic program in Hobart supports a diversified, knowledge-based economy, including manufacturing, construction, electronics and information technology, shipping and aviation services, conference hosting, catering and accommodation to name just a few.</p>
<p>These economic benefits are underpinned by the presence of a vibrant, world-class research community that has been built up over the past three decades. </p>
<p>A 20-year vision and a commitment from government to fund critical infrastructure and research programs are exactly what is needed to ensure Australia remains at the leading edge of Antarctic science and innovation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32809/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Worby has previously received funding from the Australian Antarctic Science program.</span></em></p>The Antarctic is a vast and inhospitable place with a time scale all of its own. For the scientists who travel there to carry out research, a project can sometimes take years to plan and even longer to…Tony Worby, CEO at Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRCLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/100922012-10-11T00:38:20Z2012-10-11T00:38:20ZResearch funding uncertainty hurting industry partnerships<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16397/original/gt2yqhdj-1349915152.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Industry partnerships can be critical to research outcomes and a country's productivity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/RMTip21</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Uncertainty over research funding will cost jobs, hurt productivity and threaten the government’s plans to promote better linkages between industry and research, say sector leaders.</p>
<p>The Australian Research Council this week confirmed all funding announcements and the opening of new rounds were on hold for a “brief period”, telling The Australian newspaper that the government was looking at all its discretionary grant schemes to ensure taxpayers are getting value for money.</p>
<p>“At stake are potentially upwards of 2,000 highly qualified jobs in the science and research sector, and this is a very conservative estimate,” said Vicki Thomson, executive director of development & communications at <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-technology-network-of-universities">Australian Technology Network of Universities</a>.</p>
<p>“We risk losing this talent to other labour markets, in this highly mobile global sector.”</p>
<p>CRC Association chief executive officer Tony Peacock said the freeze on funding was “extremely frustrating”, with cooperative research centres in the middle of a funding round.</p>
<p>He said with funding bids generally costing between A$200,000 and A$300,000 to get up, industry participants were getting annoyed.</p>
<p>“One of our big issues is getting businesses to participate in research at a big level and mucking people around with no communication on what’s happening is not ideal.”</p>
<p>Professor Peacock said he was getting phone calls every day from funding bidders asking if they should be bothering.</p>
<p>“I’m getting less and less certain in my answers to them.”</p>
<p>He urged the government to finalise its review of funding as soon as possible.</p>
<p>“There’s never actually been an announcement that there is a review, nor a timetable about when it might be resolved,” Professor Peacock said.</p>
<p>Ms Thomson said international and industry reputational issues, together with long-term planning cycles meant funding suspensions could have long-term impacts.</p>
<p>“The suspension of the research grant programs even for one cycle would have dire consequences for Australian research and our global competitiveness, from which it would take years to recover,” she said.</p>
<p>“Research planning and conduct is a long term exercise, taking place over a cycle of at least five years, and the sudden freezing of any step would be seriously disruptive and have widespread ramifications for the future productivity growth of the nation.”</p>
<p>Professor Peacock said the irony of the current situation was that many of the funding rounds being delayed would not lead to savings in this year’s budget.</p>
<p>“We’re only talking about dollars that start in July of next year.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10092/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Uncertainty over research funding will cost jobs, hurt productivity and threaten the government’s plans to promote better linkages between industry and research, say sector leaders. The Australian Research…Charis Palmer, Deputy Editor/Chief of StaffLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.