Applications are invited for a nine-month policy placement secondment opportunity based in EA Bristol offices to work on the use of transient and steady state climate change information to improve decision making for climate change adaptation.

This is an excellent opportunity to contribute to the methods used to underpin adaptation decision-making in some of the most important sectors for the UK. The fellow will also support existing NERC climate adaptation activities in Living With Environment Change (LWEC) and Environmental Science to Services Partnership (ESSP).

The post is part of the NERC Knowledge Exchange Policy Placement Fellowship scheme which allows researchers to work closely with policy-makers within government. The aims of the scheme are to enable access to scientific research to inform UK policy-making and provide researchers with a wider context for their work and opportunities for career and skill development.

Closing date: 12 June 2012
Application form
Guidance Notes to applicants

The Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) launched its latest Report Card on 8th May at the World Fisheries Congress in Edinburgh. It focuses on how climate change is affecting the fish and shellfish we find in our seas, providing both opportunities and threats, and what the social and economic consequences could be.

Key findings in the 2012 MCCIP Report Card include:
• There are clear changes in the depth, distribution, migration and spawning behaviours of fish – many of which can be related to warming sea temperatures.
• Cultivated fish and shellfish are both susceptible to climate change, although fish farming technologies offer good potential for adaptation.
• Controlled or closed fishing areas (a type of protected area) that can be adapted in response to climate change have the potential to help protect commercial and vulnerable fish stocks.
• Recreational sea fishing is an important socio-economic activity that could be positively affected by climate change, due to the increasing abundance of species that are of interest to anglers.
• Shifting distributions of fish have led to a series of international disagreements and will continue to have implications for fisheries management across international boundaries.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment Richard Lochhead said:
“Climate change is affecting us all and understanding the impact on the marine environment is hugely important. Fisheries and aquaculture are vital to our economy – worth over 1 billion – and clear science is critical to secure the future of our valuable food industries. That is why I welcome the collaborative work of the MCCIP – the report card provides significant and robust scientific data which will help inform future policies to tackle climate change.”

UK Minister for the Marine Environment, Richard Benyon, said:
“I would like to thank the scientists who have contributed towards this valuable report and believe we have come a long way in a short time in understanding the impacts of climate change on the marine environment.
“The truth is that climate change is having a big impact on distribution of fish stocks and this is going to present some significant challenges for policy-makers, fisheries managers and for fishing industry itself.
“The Government will develop a National Adaptation Plan in response to the Climate Change Risk Assessment in which issues affecting the marine environment will be addressed.”

The 12-page report card is available here.

The report card draws on four Open Access reviews published in Aquatic Conservation this week and available here.

Blog post by Dr Davy McCracken, Team Leader, Scottish Agricultural College.

The final day of the Planet under Pressure conference finished with a call for scientists to engage with the Rio +20 summit and beyond, defining through science the economic, social and environmental consequences of policy decisions. Interdisciplinary research, robust and comprehensive science is needed to forecast more accurately the intensity and consequences of change at multiple scales, along with assessing the consequences of potential solutions. These were the words of Dr Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Director General, and Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, of UNESCO. Dr Watson-Wright reflected in these closing remarks many of the issues and suggestions that arose in discussion at the plenary and parallel sessions during the day.

The talks and sessions on Thursday focused on the way ahead to Rio + 20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, following discussions in previous days examining the challenges facing the planet and the innovative solutions that might exist to tackle these. A significant theme to emerge was the need for better links between science and policy, along with the need for integrated, interdisciplinary research to tackle interconnected problems. On at least two occassions, the concept of the economic, environmental and social elements within sustainable development being characterised as ‘pillars’, as is the norm, was challenged, as this separated these factors conceptually, when in fact they are highly connected to one another. There were also calls throughout the day for new partnerships between science, policy, industry and business, along with the need for social and natural scientists to collaborate with one another.

Addressing the conference by video link, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed Rio +20 as a major opportunity to develop the science-policy interface. This echoed comments at the conference earlier in the week by Yvo de Boer, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, who called for greater dialologue between science, policy and the media and the need to find new platforms to facilitate these interactions.

Johan Rockström, Stockholm Resilience Centre, introduced the audience to Future Earth, of which he is co-chair and which he described as an ‘Apollo-type global endeavour’. Future Earth is envisaged as a ‘global platform for collaboration on Earth-system research for global sustainability’, a 10 – year programme that brings together bodies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNESCO, the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the major funders of environmental research globally (the Belmont Forum). Future Earth will be launched at the Rio summit in June, with a new governance structure in place from January 2013. A possible outcome from Future Earth could be, Professor Rockström said, identification of the most pressing questions (and hopefully, solutions to these) facing humanity on global environmental challenges. The biggest intellectual contribution that Future Earth could make, Professor Rockström said, was in taking a bold step to integrate natural and social sciences in understanding these challenges.

There were calls from Professor Anne Glover, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Scottish Government and now Chief Scientific Adviser to the European Commission, for better regulation of financial markets, as the real drivers of policy decisions. Professor Glover said that society spends a great deal of money on funding research into climate change, for example, which then delivers evidence on the likely impacts of environmental change, with limited uncertaintly. Policy-makers looking at this evidence can see clearly that action to tackle climate change is needed but ‘markets are not moral’; markets instead see in melting permafrost and areas of drought opportunities for the exploitation of new resources and the opening up of new commercial opportunities. Economists, social scientists and political scientists need to consider how to develop creative models for regulation, to create a level playing field for business to allow them to behave sustainably. Without this, Professor Glover said, our investment in scientific evidence is wasted.

One of the most interesting discussions attended by the Policy Team focused on the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’. There have been calls for the Sustainable Development Goals, expected as an ouput from the Rio +20 meeting, to incoporate the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’, or environmental limits to growth. A speaker from Oxfam highlighted the need to consider ’social boundaries’ alongside the environment, making the important point that a socially, as well as an environmentally just space for humanity to occupy was required as an outcome of Rio. Again, there were calls for economics to be reformed fundamentally if planetary, and social, boundaries are to be respected, with discussion of new methods of measuring social progress and growth ‘beyond GDP’. Scientists, the panellists stated, should engage with sustainable development policies to make sure that these have scientific integrity.

A ’state of the planet declaration’ was launched at the conference, representing a summary of the major themes to have emerged over the four days and the science community’s submission to the Rio + 20 meeting. This statement, which will be refined further over the next three months, emphasises the need for greater interconnectedness between disciplines, the need for an ‘improved contract’ between science and society and a ‘global innovation system’ to support the generation of solutions. Overall, the message of the declaration and of the meeting was that the science community has a responsibility and a duty to reach out beyond its borders to other disciplines, to policy-makers and society at large to convince of the scale of the challenge and the need for changes in economics, policy and society, at local, regional and global scales, to address these.

Events are moving fast on the international biodiversity scene, with the establishment of an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the re-focussing of the Global Change Programmes, including Diversitas , within a new structure, ‘Future Earth’. There is now even greater need for a UK biodiversity committee to provide a voice for IPBES and for the activities within Diversitas.

On 25th November 2011, an open meeting was held in London, hosted by the British Ecological Society, to gauge interest in establishing a national committee which could present a UK focus for IPBES discussions and for Diversitas. There was wide support for the idea, with added encouragement for us to ensure that it was fully representative of all relevant communities (terrestrial, marine, freshwater etc) and across institutions (universities, government, NGOs, institutes). The participants also encouraged the organisers, Professor Georgina Mace and Professor Dave Raffaelli, to ensure that the committee would be constituted and managed democratically, be flexible to changing circumstances and be well supported to ensure long-term viability and relevance. That committee would report to the Royal Society’s Global Environmental Research Committee, in place of Professors Mace and Raffaelli as the current Diversitas “focal point contacts”.

To this end there is now an invitation to members of the ecological science community in the UK, to forward to serve on a National Biodiversity Committee. This committee would be drawn from the grass-roots – it should not be seen as a clique of established organisations or interest groups. Anyone can stand, no areas or sub-disciplines are excluded. The idea is to have between 10 and 15 people serve on the committee which elects a chair, decides on Terms of Reference and reports to the Royal Society’s committee a few times a year. Should the number of candidates exceed that for a workable committee, then a voting process will be developed.

If you wish to stand for this committee, please register your interest by email to Dave Raffaelli (david.raffaelli@york.ac.uk), providing the details below by the end of April 2012:~
Name:
Institution/association:
Contact details/web page:
Field of biodiversity science:
Experience of serving on similar committees:
Nominator 1, name and contact details:
Nominator 2, name and contact details:

As part of National Science and Engineering Week 2012, young scientists were today given the chance to question Ministers and Members of Parliament on the future of science and engineering in the UK at a meeting organised by the Society of Biology. The innovative event followed the structure of a select committee hearing in which Parliament Ministers ordinarily question stakeholder witnesses in order to gather evidence on an issue. However, today it was the Ministers answering the questions, which were posed by young representatives from a range of societies and institutions.

In the first of three panels, Rt Hon David Willets MP, Minister for Universities and Science, and Professor John Perkins CBE FREng, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills addressed questions on science in politics, science funding, and education and careers. The second session saw members of the Science and Technology Committee discussing the status of science as well as the role and functioning of the Committee. Finally, Chi Onurwah, Shadow Minister for Innovation and Science gave input on a number of science-policy issues.

Science and Policy Making
One of the major messages to come from Ministers during the sessions is that there is an increasing awareness amongst Ministers of the need for scientific evidence in policy making; Mr Willetts MP identified that the Code of Conduct now contains explicit protection for scientific advice in policy debates and Prof Perkins said he has observed that science is increasingly ‘permeating’ the policy process. However, the point was made that politicians make their final decisions based on democratic vote, rather than a ‘technocratic’ decision based purely on science and therefore improved dialogue between scientists, policymakers and the public is critical to ensure voters are well informed about contemporary scientific issues.

The role of Learned Societies, such as the British Ecological Society, was identified as key in developing policy as there are very few scientists or engineers in Parliament. Fostering relationships with Chief Scientific Advisers was suggested as an effective route of engagement between the Societies and Government, as well as the maintenance of quality events, publications and communications by Learned Societies.

Science Education and Careers
Science education and careers was a significant focus of all three sessions. Mr Willetts MP suggested the news was generally positive with science subjects all back in the ‘top 10’ for A-level choices. However, a lack of practical experiments in the classroom was identified as a significant issue, a conclusion made by the Science and Technology Committee in a recent report. Ministers cited Health and Safety concerns as a major barrier as well as a lack of equipment and teacher training. It was suggested that one solution is better collaboration between schools and universities as a way to share resources and attract greater funding from Research Councils.

In order to increase interest in science as a subject, several panel members identified a need for significant improvements to careers advice services, including better promotion of the range of career options available to scientists. Ambassadors in schools, targeted events, and improved representation of science in the media were seen as effective ways to engage young people in science. A need to foster a real passion and curiosity for science, particularly at an early age, was seen as a priority and the current ‘spoon-feeding’ approach of science curriculums was identified as being ineffective in achieving this.

A Precedent for Future Events
The event was very well attended by young scientists from a broad range of institutions and societies and at the end of the sessions, Ministers voiced their appreciation for the opportunity to hear from some of the scientists and engineers of the future. Stephen Benn of the Society of Biology closed the meeting by thanking all those involved and voiced a hope that today’s event sets a precedent for further interactions between policy makers and young scientists.

UK businesses as a whole invest less in research and development than their major international competitors and there is more that the Government can do to address this disparity. That was the message from Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), addressing this afternoon’s meeting of the Policy Lunchbox network. Beck provided a fascinating overview of an area of policy that members of the BES may know little about but, Beck made clear, should familiarise ourselves with given the vital importance of support from business to the health of the science base in the UK.

The previous Labour Government stated its aim to increase the overall investment in research and development (R&D) from all sources to 2.5% of GDP by 2014 but the current Government doesn’t intend to adopt national targets for proportion of GDP spent on R&D. At present we stand only at 1.8% of GDP being invested, indicating the distance that there still is to travel to catch up with other G7 countries. Given that the UK Government is committed to tackling the budget deficit and therefore tightening spending over the coming years, the importance of leveraging other sources for investment in R&D is clear. At the moment however, the UK is third from bottom amongst the ‘G7′ group of nations in terms of business spend on R&D. In 2009, the 1000 UK companies that invested the most in R&D spent a total of £25.3bn, down 0.6% year on year. So what can the Government do to address this potential downward trend?

First, Beck stressed, we need to understand why business and industry isn’t investing as much in R&D in the UK as it could do. Beck outlined research which suggests that one way this can be explained is as a combination of three factors which collectively can be called ‘market failure’:

1. ‘Spillover rationale’: the suggestion that innovators find it difficult to appropriate all returns from their innovations. For example, the inventor of the first personal computer will have seen others move into develop this technology and will now occupy a crowded space. The Government can address this by means to allow the companies to keep the benefits of their investments more immediately, for example through tax breaks such as the R&D tax credit.

2. Coordination failure: broadly speaking, difficulties encountered by groups of individuals or firms in acting collectively. There may be a failure of businesses to network sufficiently with organisations conducting research (or vice versa) that may be of benefit to them – for example, by the facilitation of partnerships between industry and universities.

3. Information failure: Differences in the information available to both parties prevent transactions from taking place. This argument, for example, suggests that businesses seeking financial support or partners for R&D projects simply don’t know where to find the information.

Beck suggested that there a number of mechanisms that Government could use to address these market failures, thereby encouraging greater support from business and industry for science in the UK, through focusing on the following areas:

1. Skills: Universities report that many students entering courses from A’ Levels require remedial lessons in, for example, mathematics and experimental design, in order to perform. In addition, industries have complained that they need to give new graduates from universities additional training before they are competent in their jobs. There have also been reports from industry surveys that there is a shortage of graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) to fill posts. Alongside addressing school and university tuition there therefore appears a need to raise the profile of careers in science amongst young people.

Recent amendments to immigration requirements in the UK may also have sent a negative message to qualified STEM graduates from overseas, those considering further study and research in the UK, regarding the UK’s reputation as a good place to pursue a scientific career. Although the Government has taken steps to address these issues for STEM graduates, these negative perceptions may take some time to dispel.

2. Financial environment: tax-breaks such as the ‘patent box’ (a corporation tax cut of 10% on all profits attributed to patents) could create a favourable environment for companies to invest in R & D. Beck also highlighted the positive role that ‘challenge prizes’, such as the $10 billion Ansari X Prize, can play in incentivising investment and scientific progress. Since the launch of the X Prize, to reward the development of the first viable craft for unmanned space flight, it is estimated that there has been an additional $100 billion of investment in this area of study.

3. Knowledge flow: the Government could amend the Research Excellence Framework to make it easier for universities to employ those who have worked in industry, for example. When budgets are cut within industry, Beck suggested, the one of the first areas of investment to be cut is the travel budget. Employees therefore decrease their network at a time when they should be expanding this resource. Facilitating the flow of information between researchers in academia and in industry can help to address this.

4. A long-term, cross-party strategy for science in the UK will also be very welcome.

Beck highlighted recent developments from Government which have gone some way to address the points raised. For example, a £250,000 prize centre has been announced (orders of magnitude less than the X Prize but nonetheless a step in the right direction), whilst the Government is pressing ahead with plans for research hubs to link business and academia (so called ‘Catapult Centres’, previously known as ‘Technology Innovation Centres’) to aid commercialisation. However, a convincing argument for the state to do more has recently come in the form of a pamphlet by Mariana Mazzucato: The Entrepreneurial State.

Speaking about the publication on this morning’s Today Programme and in the pamphlet, Ms Mazzucato argues for public policy to be bold and courageous, stepping in to fund areas that the private sector has no interest in, plus put in place mechanisms to reap greater returns for itself for doing so. As an example, the United States supported the development of the internet by pouring large amounts of money into the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which undertook a significant amount of the research which underpinned the formation of what is now known as Silicon Valley. The private sector, Mariana suggests, has a reputation of coming into areas of research 15 – 20 years after a large amount of state investment. The private sector cannot therefore be seen as the answer to addressing deficits in state funding for science and innovation (although there is clear complementarily); the Government must find innovative ways of funding large-scale investment in the science base in this country if we want to see the emergence of another ‘Google’ in the UK, for example.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for Policy Officers and others working in learned societies and the third sector. It is run jointly by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society. See our webpage for details of forthcoming events.

The British Ecological Society has a opportunity for a paid internship to assist the Science Policy Team for two days a week for three months at the Society’s office in central London.

Policy Interns will help:

•Monitor legislation and policy developments relevant to the science of ecology;
•Assist with the preparation of policy statements, briefing papers and responses to Government consultations;
•Assist with the organisation of policy meetings and events;
•Assist with administrative tasks.

Qualifications and skills:

•Graduate;
•Knowledge or interest in the science of ecology;
•Knowledge or interest in public policy;
•Excellent IT skills.

To apply please send a covering letter (no more than one side of A4) and a CV (no more than two sides of A4) to Ceri Margerison, Policy Manager, at Policy@BritishEcologicalSociety.org

The closing date for this opportunity is 17.00 on Thursday 22nd March, 2012.

Earlier today the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (APPEG) launched a report, produced by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), entitled “The future for EU Environmental Policy: Challenges and Opportunities”.

The independent report considers environmental challenges facing the EU and the priorities for future development of EU environmental policy.

Uncertainty is part of science but it’s no excuse for indecision, according to Chandrika Nath, scientific advisor at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

Scientists know that uncertainty is intrinsic to scientific investigation whether as a result of inherently variable natural systems, incomplete knowledge of complex mechanisms, or statistical probability.

Uncertainty drives science forward, and keeps scientists looking for answers. Policymakers, however, like to have definite answers, especially around controversial choices on the environment. So where uncertainty drives scientists into action, it can lead policymakers to indecision, delaying in the hope of eliminating uncertainty or providing an excuse not to make unpopular decisions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed a “likelihood scale” that can help link probabilities to everyday language. For example, when the IPCC reports states that “it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate”, they mean there is a “more than 95 per cent probability” of that being the case.

Scientists often have limited control over how policymakers use their findings but they must still communicate clearly and openly about any uncertainty in the information they present. Making sure that uncertainty is communicated clearly with policymakers should mean that, over time, they become more familiar with the concept, and more confident about making decisions despite it.

Text adapted from an article on the Science and Development Network website.

Interested in discussing the challenges facing Scotland’s biodiversity to 2020 and helping to inform the development of Scotland’s draft Biodiversity Strategy? Come along to a meeting in Edinburgh on 8th – 9th March 2012. BES members can attend for FREE (but must register in advance).

The BES is working with the British Society of Soil Science and the Scottish Government’s Biodiversity Science Group to organise a one-day conference (9th March), an evening lecture, reception and dinner (8th March) at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The meeting will:

•Introduce the science community in Scotland to the revision of Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy;
•Explore the scale of the challenges facing the implementation of an ecosystem approach in Scotland;
•Provide an opportunity for the science community to find out about the needs of policy-makers;
•Provide an opportunity for networking between the science and policy communities.

The evening reception will celebrate the launch of the BES Scotland Policy Group, a new initiative from the Society that aims to link members of the Society in Scotland who are interested in informing policy development and through this to assist the Society’s policy team in doing the same.

Confirmed speakers for the 9th of March include: Colin Moffatt, Head of Science at Marine Scotland; Ken Norris, biodiversity theme leader at NERC and biodiversity chapter lead in the National Ecosystem Assessment; Helaina Black, James Hutton Institute; and Chris Quine, Forest Research.

Poster abstracts are invited upon registration. We particularly welcome registration by students to this meeting and will be offering a prize for the best poster.

Full details of the programme and how to register are available from the BES website.