Ecology and Policy Blog

Archive for the ‘Research’ Category

Apply now for BES Undergraduate Fellowship Scheme

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

The British Ecological Society Undergraduate Fellowship Scheme offers the opportunity for current or recent undergraduates to find out more about the careers available in the area of ecology.

Under the year-long scheme, Fellows will have the opportunity to attend the BES annual meeting to learn more about the society and possible careers in ecology and research. Throughout the year, participants will be encouraged to attend a variety of events throughout the UK, providing the chance for networking and to hear about opportunities in ecology. Graduate members and staff of the BES will also provide a mentoring service for Fellows through their progression from education and training to the start of an ecology career.

More information on the scheme, and details on how to apply are available here. Closing date for applications is 31st March 2012.

UK Government Thinktank suggests lack of agricultural research is a major cause of food scarcity

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Factors including drought, soil erosion, salinity and climate change all contribute to food scarcity, but a report by the UK government’s Foresight thinktank (The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability) suggests another important cause may be insufficient agricultural research. In most countries, research into agriculture and fisheries remains a low priority and two decades of this lack of interest has caused a slow-down in productivity gains. The report emphasises the need for a significant increase in new agricultural research to support a radical change to the food system in order to meet the urgency of food scarcity. Investment in research is one of the report’s ‘key priorities’ and it suggests new models of research funding are needed in which public, private and third sector funders coordinate their efforts and incentives are provided for research into solutions to benefit low-income countries.

Welsh Universities Lead in Climate Change Research and Innovation

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

This week the Welsh Government held a climate change and sustainability exhibition hosted by Professor Noel Lloyd, Chair of Higher Education Wales and John Griffiths AM, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. The exhibition showcased the work of Wales’ leading university research teams in issues relating to climate change, sustainability and associated technology.

Projects from a range of research areas including technology and climate change were exhibited including a particularly interesting collaborative project between Aberystwyth University and the investment company Compton Group. This project aimed to investigate methods for reducing methane production by cattle whilst increasing milk and meat production by adding sandalwood to the animals’ feed. Sandalwood inhibits the growth of methane producing bacteria in the stomachs of ruminants, diverting the energy normally used to produce methane to growth and higher milk production.

The exhibition was also attended by the Environment Minister John Griffiths AM who spoke about the important role of universities in tackling climate change. He said “Climate change is a critically important issue and one the Welsh Government is committed to tackling. Today’s showcase demonstrates that Welsh universities are taking forward some truly ground breaking work on this issue – work that will be key to helping us, the Welsh Government, to deliver on the targets we have set out in our Climate Change Strategy. It provides a real and tangible example of how, through the academic community, Wales is leading the way on climate change research and innovation as well as demonstrating how we in Wales are working together to solve business questions and environmental issues.”

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Forest Research Inquiry – Oral Evidence

Wednesday, July 13th, 2011

Today the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee took oral evidence on the Forest Research Inquiry into the effects of the spending review, and research priorities in the forestry research community. The evidence session involved witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including academia, industry, public bodies and the learned societies, who were represented by Jackie Caine, Science Policy Officer at the Society of Biology. The Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP was also present.

Forest research is highly important because forests require active management and appropriate research will help us to understand how best to obtain the unique set of benefits forests can provide. The importance of this was outline in the National Ecosystem Assessment which was released last month. Forests are also experiencing a unique set of threats including novel pests and diseases, and climate change which needs to be researched to aid future adaptation.

The effect of the spending review on forest research in the UK and current funding strategies were one of the main topics covered by the committee’s questions. Both Forestry Commission and Research Council funding is declining. Currently the government spends around £10 million on forestry research however this is expected to decline to approximately £6 million by 2015 when the cuts have taken full effect. Almost 30% of jobs at Forest Research will be cut over the period to 2015. Reduced levels of funding available to the agency Forest Research may reduce the agency’s capacity to leverage funding from other sources such as industry and Europe. The Minister said that even with the budget cuts and fewer scientists research in priority areas will be maintained by redirecting funding from other areas.

A range of funders and a range of perspectives on research priorities may be useful for forest research in the UK. It was the opinion of Stuart Goodall from the Confederation of Forest Industries that potential income for forest research from industry is fairly modest. The sale of high quality wood and other forest products was suggested as one way in which the forestry sector could become self sustaining and fund it’s own research, however this would take time and investment. Several innovative approaches to obtaining new funding were suggested including using the carbon markets and approaching international forestry companies with high revenues to request funding and investment in future forest products and technology. Whatever the funding source is it needs to be secure over long periods because of the time frame of forest research. There was agreement that in the future it would be best for the forestry sector to become self sustaining and pay for its own research. This could be achieved by investing in research now, and developing high quality products. According to the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP it shouldn’t be made mandatory for the private sector to provide funding.

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) fund a small amount of forest research within their other programmes. NERC and BBSRC hardly ever receive proposals for forest research because there is widespread belief that forestry is not within their remit. NERC and BBSRC would be happy to consider more proposals for forestry projects. Representatives from NERC and BBSRC were reminded that the research councils have a responsibility to ensure university forestry departments are funded appropriately and have longevity.
If Forest Research is made more independent it may be able to access research council funding in addition to the funding it receives from the Forestry Commission. Public sector organisations are currently excluded from applying for research council funding.

Priority setting by forest research institutions was also scrutinised by the committee. Dr James Pendlebury the Chief Executive of Forest Research reminded the committee that forest research is complex, long term and has numerous priorities that are balanced in the best way possible by Forest Research.

One point of agreement was that forest research needs an overall long term strategy developed by all the stakeholders in an open discussion with better coordination between universities, Forest Research and within Europe. Across the witnesses there was a consensus that the Forest Research Coordination Committee needs to be brought back. In addition the witnesses felt that better transparency is needed in the relationship between Forest Research and the Forestry Commission.

Researchers in academia currently feel that important areas of forest research are not being considered by the research councils. Appropriate outreach programmes to make sure that research is communicated to the people that use it are vital according to Stuart Goodall.

Among individuals from industry, the Forestry Commission and academia there was concern that UK forests are under managed. More research into how to produce high quality wood and other forest products is needed according to Professor Philip Turner, from the Forest Products Research Institute at Edinburgh Napier University, but this is currently not a main priority of the research councils or the Forestry Commission.

The ability of Forest Research to monitor and research the impacts of climate change, and emerging diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum is crucial and this shouldn’t be impacted by the spending review. The private sector doesn’t have the skills and experience to carry out this type of research.

Currently no-one takes responsibility for disease monitoring and research into prevention for trees in hedgerows and in public spaces. This is a serious gap in the current research priorities. It was suggested that the Forestry Commission provide an easy to access database documenting their research on particular diseases, the risks associated with the disease and potential solutions. In the future the UKNEA is likely to influence the research priorities of Forest Research.

Finally the committee discussed careers in the forest research sector. Forestry, which will be important for the green economy and green jobs, has been in decline as a profession with few graduates choosing to study the subject. Consequently the numbers of specialist scientists required in forest research such as entomologists and tree pathologists are declining. One of the main causes of the problem is the lack of PhD studentships and potential employers for graduates. The cuts are likely to affect the number of PhD studentships sponsored by Forest Research although no reductions have been made as yet. In addition as a result of the spending review Forest Research the agency is not able to hire new staff. This has significant implications for early career researchers in forestry who, in the past, have undertaken short placements after their doctorate at Forest Research as a way into the profession.

It is of paramount importance that there are scientists available trained in particular aspects of forest research because future threats will act too quickly to wait for a skills base to be re-established.

You can watch the evidence session here.

Valuing Nature Network Call for Proposals to Launch Next Week

Monday, July 11th, 2011

The NERC Valuing Nature Network (VNN) will release a call for proposals next week with a deadline of 16th September.

The VNN is an interdisciplinary network of natural, social and economic scientists. The proposals being sought through this initial phase will be for year-long projects, expected to report in the October 2012. It is anticipated that the initial projects will lay the ground for a more substantive phase two, with the results of the initial projects informing the second research call.

The announcements follows a series of discipinary scoping workshops which have taken place in London over the past six weeks, culminating in an interdisciplinary town hall meeting at the end of June. The workshop series brought together researchers to consider the challenges to putting a value on natural capital and the research questions which the network should seek to address. As a result, two major themes have emerged in the work of the VNN:

‘1. Developing a trans-disciplinary framework for the valuation of stocks of natural capital and flows of ecosystem services’
.
Natural and social scientists to work together to develop integrated methods for monetary and non-monetary valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services. Teams also to work to identify how natural capital and ecosystem services can be managed sustainably.

‘2. Characterising the socio-ecological system knowledge required to properly capture the value of biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural resources’.
Evaluate the information available in relation to the valuation of natural resource stocks and ecosystem service flows, recognising the limitations and uncertainties in the current knowledge base. Identify ways to improve the accessibility and the integration of this existing data, including socioeconomic data sets. Develop integrated models of natural capital and ecosystem services at relevant spatial and temporal scales.

Further information is available from the VNN website.

Is Biodiversity Falling off the Research Radar?

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

Following the results of the consultation on the Green Paper on a Common Strategic Framework for future EU Research and Innovation Funding it has become clear that many researchers in ecology have been left feeling that biodiversity research is falling off the radar.

The Green Paper, published in February this year was designed to spark debate about research funding to inform the Horizon 2020 strategy which will replace the Framework Programme for research, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology after the next EU budget in 2013.
Evidence was gathered in five main areas:
1. Working together to deliver on Europe 2020
2. Tackling societal challenges
3. Strengthening competitiveness
4. Strengthening Europe’s science base and the European Research Area
5. Public debate and further steps

Despite biodiversity loss being a major societal challenge it was not mentioned at all in the Green Paper, and there was no mention of funding research to help meet the 2020 biodiversity targets. This was noted by a variety of organisations including the French government, Defra, NERC and WWF Europe. Many were dismayed that biodiversity research had been omitted when biodiversity loss is such a pressing issue with a great deal of public interest.

Several organisations emphasised the need for biodiversity and ecosystem related research to be one of the main research priorities for the EU, as large scale projects with international collaboration are needed. The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures noted that long term investment by the EU is needed for novel technologies (such as remote sensing) to monitor biodiversity, as well as investment in technology to utilise the massive quantities of environmental data that are accumulating.

Despite the omission of biodiversity loss from the Green Paper there were some indications in the European Commission’s initial analysis that they intend to develop an international collaboration strategy which will be valuable for the field of biodiversity research.

Concerns that biodiversity is falling off the radar have been reflected in the recent failure of EU member states to endorse the 20 concrete measures proposed by the EU executive to implement the six headline targets that will allow the 2020 biodiversity target to be achieved. Some countries including Denmark and Italy have refused to endorse the six headline targets because of the perceived high financial cost of protecting biodiversity. Many of the member states said they require more time to consider the measures and emphasised the need to learn from the mistakes of the 2010 targets, which failed mainly because the EU never really agreed on how best to achieve the goals and how to finance them.

Public interest in biodiversity issues may also be declining. Googletrends has shown that the number of times the word biodiversity has been searched has declined from 2004 to the present day, whilst searches for ecosystem services continue to increase.

Whether biodiversity research gets the funding it needs from the European Commission in Horizon 2020 remains to be seen.

Big success for BES ‘Forests and Global Change’ Symposium

Monday, April 4th, 2011

Last week the University of Cambridge hosted the BES Annual Symposium, this year titled ‘Forests and Global Change’. The event was a huge success with 370 delegates attending the three day symposium which was called “the best symposium yet” by one of the speakers, Adrian Newton.

A number of experts gave presentations on the latest research into the effect a changing climate has on forest ecosystems, and what this might mean in the future. The talks covered a range of subjects from carbon storage to biodiversity conservation, and expanded on how we can implement action through the development of new strategies such as ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation’ (REDD).

By bringing together so many experts to showcase this information it is hoped progress can be made towards the creation of an informed approach to climate change and its impact of forest ecosystems, and further help to bridge the gap between science and policy.

A win-win for science and innovation

Monday, February 7th, 2011

Last week EU leaders put the subject of research and innovation at the top of the political agenda by dedicating one of their summit meetings specifically to the issue. Today the European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, conducted a keynote speech highlighting the importance of research and innovation at the Royal Society, London.

Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn’s speech opened with her agreement with the Royal Society; to “put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth”. She revised that we need to efficiently prioritise resources, and drew attention to the need for continued investment in research and innovation in order to create future jobs, warning that cuts to the sector could jeopardise economic growth. This opinion is supported by economic research, which indicates that reaching the EU’s target of investing 3% of GDP in the sector could create nearly four million jobs in Europe and increase annual GDP by €700 billion by 2025.

The talk was held prior to the release of the Green Paper on future EU funding for research and innovation by the European Commission this week. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn explained that there have been seven previous Framework Programmes. Rather than creating an eighth however, she proposed a new instrument – a Common Strategic Framework, that would bring together all of the relevant EU tools. This approach, as outlined in the Green Paper, would be supportive of EU policy objectives, and therefore operate on a scale at which major European societal challenges could be dealt with effectively. The Common Strategic Framework would aim to raise scientific excellence in Europe by increasing support and investment to create an attractive environment in which to harness scientific talent. Additional to this, the framework would be simple, with less red tape, allowing scientists to spend more time in the lab and innovators to innovate.

The second speaker of the day, Professor Adrian Smith, Director General for Knowledge and Innovation at the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, agreed with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. He stated that directing funding streams toward research and innovation was vital to deliver added value, and that and collaboration between all EU members would be required for success.

In light of today’s talks on research and innovation one thing stands out; it is now time to get focused, get united, and get ahead.

Policy Priorities for UK Nature Conservation Identified

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

A group led by Professor Bill Sutherland at Cambridge University has identified the top 25 issues in conservation in greatest need of attention from policy-makers; either through the production of new or amendments to existing policy. The group, representing governmental organisations, NGOs and academia, focused on those areas where there may be options to fill gaps, improve implementation or where new research may be required. The result was a long-list of 117 issues, honed to 25 through a two-day workshop and a voting process. Sutherland et. al. intend that the list be of use to amongst others, policy-makers, providing knowledge on areas in need of attention and the policy options which may be available to address these areas and researchers, who can use the paper as a guide to policy-relevant, scientific questions which could form the focus of research efforts.

Issues identified in the paper cover both terrestrial and marine environments, ranging from protected areas and climate change, to habitat banking, restoring floodplain functionality for nature conservation and ecosystem services, peatland restoration, nanotechnology, marine spatial planning and non-native invasive species.

To take ‘protected areas’ as an example of the authors’ approach, Sutherland et.al. identify that the management of protected sites was developed at a time when landscape-change was generally directly human-induced and was therefore largely controllable. How should these areas be managed now, given the indirect and unpredictable effects of climate change? Policy options given include designating sites now which are likely to make an important biodiversity contribution in the future. The authors then identify a number of research questions, including the need to investigate what site properties enable widlife resilience under climate change.

The authors acknowledge in the discussion section that ‘ecosystem services’ is a thread running throughout the paper, and recognise that the future of biodiversity conservation will embrace this approach. Therefore they call on policy-makers and the research community to explore how policy instruments promoting ecosystem conservation can best be directed to maximise benefits for biodiversity.

The authors recommend that the exercise be repeated for the UK every five years and encourage other countries to carry out a similar activity.

Sutherland, W. J., Albon, S. D., Allison, H., Armstrong-Brown, S., Bailey, M. J., Brereton, T., Boyd, I. L., Carey, P., Edwards, J., Gill, M., Hill, D., Hodge, I., Hunt, A. J., Le Quesne, W. J. F., Macdonald, D. W., Mee, L. D., Mitchell, R., Norman, T., Owen, R. P., Parker, D., Prior, S. V., Pullin, A. S., Rands, M. R. W., Redpath, S., Spencer, J., Spray, C. J., Thomas, C. D., Tucker, G. M., Watkinson, A. R. and Clements, A. , REVIEW: The identification of priority policy options for UK nature conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology, no. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01863.x

REF to be delayed by one year

Friday, July 9th, 2010

David Willetts, Minister for Science and Universities, today delivered his first major speech on the Government’s vision for science in the UK, the Royal Institution. The BES listened as the Minister outlined his priorities for science, and announced a one year delay to the Research Excellence Framework to allow HEFCE to better assess the results of the ‘impact’ pilot exercise.

The Minister began by highlighting that 2010 had so far seen a ‘great summer for science’, with the Royal Society’s hiigh profile ‘See Further’ festival, Lord Rees’ delivery of the Reith Lectures and BBC programming such as Prof. Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Solar System’. He then went on to reiterate his commitment to the dual support system for universities and the Haldane Principle – that decisions about where to allocate research spend are made at arms-length from governments. He recognised the argument that many in the scientific community, including CaSE, have made; that other countries have responded to the recession by increasing their spend on science, as a pathway to growth, but stated that these countries’ deficits were less than that of the UK. He stressed however that Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Chancellor George Osborne both understood the value of science to re-balancing the economy.

The Minister said that the coalition government had so far ‘been good’ for science; with Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, updating guidelines on the use of evidence in policy-making, and the new principles on the treatment of independent scientific advice now referred to in the Ministerial Code. However, not unexpectedly, he could not give a commitment to levels of funding which science and HE will receive into the future: this is an announcment which must wait until the Comprehensive Spending Review later this year.

The second part of the Minister’s speech focused on the economic case for investing in science, before moving on to outline his priorities for science in the coming months and years. Public spend on science has to stand up to public scrutiny, the Minister said, and although sceptical of the ‘impact agenda’ as currently framed, the Minister sees a need to demonstrate and measure the impact of research – on the economy, policy or society. A researcher cannot see publishing a certain number of papers in a particular peer-reviewed journal as their only measure of success, or impact, he stressed later during Q and A. Hence the delay of the REF for a year, to allow assessment of the impact pilot but also to learn from schemes being developed in the USA. The Society of Biology welcomed the delay during the Q and A session.

The Minister outlined his support for ‘clusters’, which he described as ‘low risk environments for high risk’ endeavours, singling out Dundee and the computer games development industry ‘clustering’ around Abertay University. He criticised the commonly voiced notion that the ‘British invent but fail to capitalise on’ discoveries. Instead, he said, the UK has demonstrated its capacity to capitalise on the research which happens elsewhere. Science investment matters, he said, partly because it increases the absorptive capacity of the UK: our ability to apply science here and as such reap rewards for our economy.

Transparency on the part of scientists, with greater sharing of data, was also highlighted as vital, and the Minister also commented that he had raised the importance of libel law reform with the Ministry of Justice: an importance which had been recognised.

Finally, the Minister outlined three priorities for his portfolio, which will form the focus of policy:
1) Investing in shared research facilities (research platforms)
2) Government playing a greater role in procurement (for example, to support small and medium sized enterprises – SMEs)
3) Public competitions for new technologies.

On this last point, the Minister singled out the X Prize Foundation for supporting the development of sub-orbital space flight. The Government might not set the prize – this could be driven by the marketplace.

Overall, the Minister seemed genuinely committed to the importance of science and technology. He recognises the worth of science and the importance of evidence-based policy. Yet, it seemed clear too that the case for investment in science still needs to be made to the Treasury. The Minister was pragmatic, stating throughout that cuts will be necessary and at one point that the challenge is to demonstrate ‘hard headed economic returns’ to enable maintenance of basic science.

profile

"The Field Experience Grant supported British and Russian academics and students in Far East Russia." Markus Eichhorn Grant Recipient

"The BES is a supportive society"

Become a member and take advantage of all the member benefits including journals, discounts, bulletins and much more!Apply NowRenew

Already a member?

Come in to access the forums, network with other members, apply for grants and more!

Support the charitable aims of the Society.