The Urban Research Program is offering an honours scholarship worth $1250 for a student interested in undertaking their honours project in 2010.
This scholarship will be made available to an honours student to examine critical questions related to the future of food and agriculture in Australia. Research questions for this project could include: challenges and prospects for securing urban Australia’s food supply, with a case study of south-east Queensland; strategies of urban-based food movements; policy and planning for food security; and the impacts of climate change for urban food security.
Honours students will become a member of the newly formed Food Research Group, housed within the Urban Research Program at Griffith University. The Food Research Group will hold regular meetings and seminars, all of which will support students in their research.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Please contact Kristen Lyons to apply.
kristen.lyons@griffith.edu.au
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Summer Intern at Friends of the Earth
Use your summer break productively!
Are you interested in the protection of our environment and promoting the rights of communities?
Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) is currently seeking volunteers for an exciting new project working on an emerging environmental issue. So why not join us in the office and put your University skills into action for the protection of our planet.
Please contact Derec or Daisy on (07) 3846 5793 to discuss how you can be involved with Friends of the Earth whilst learning real-life campaigning skills.
Are you interested in the protection of our environment and promoting the rights of communities?
Friends of the Earth Australia (FoEA) is currently seeking volunteers for an exciting new project working on an emerging environmental issue. So why not join us in the office and put your University skills into action for the protection of our planet.
Please contact Derec or Daisy on (07) 3846 5793 to discuss how you can be involved with Friends of the Earth whilst learning real-life campaigning skills.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A support event for the 350.org International Day of Action Saturday 24th October
Griffith University, Nathan
Climate Action Day
Thursday 22 October 2009
11am – 4pm
Community Centre grassed area outside the Nathan Post Office
Speakers:
Assoc Prof Carla Catterall,
Assoc Prof Darryl Jones
Climate 4 change
GU student speakers
Information stalls
Free Movie and Discussion “The Age of Stupid”
'The Age of Stupid' is the new cinema documentary from the Director of 'McLibel' and the Producer of the Oscar-winning 'One Day in September'. Stars Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?
For more info see http://www.350.org/actions
Climate Action Day
Thursday 22 October 2009
11am – 4pm
Community Centre grassed area outside the Nathan Post Office
Speakers:
Assoc Prof Carla Catterall,
Assoc Prof Darryl Jones
Climate 4 change
GU student speakers
Information stalls
Free Movie and Discussion “The Age of Stupid”
'The Age of Stupid' is the new cinema documentary from the Director of 'McLibel' and the Producer of the Oscar-winning 'One Day in September'. Stars Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?
For more info see http://www.350.org/actions
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Food Politics Students on 4ZZZ radio
To tune in to radio coverage of our field trip Skip Dipping, and students reflections on this experience, check out 'The Paradigm Shift on Food' podcast. Congratulations to all those students who were interviewed, you provided some thoughtful reflections on our night out!
http://theparadigmshift.podbean.com/.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Consumption Atlas
Check out the new ACF Consumption Atlas to see how your suburb measures up against the rest of the country in terms of greenhouse pollution, water use and eco-footprint.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/consumptionatlas/
http://www.acfonline.org.au/consumptionatlas/
Skip Dipping 2009
In a record turn out, around 30 students and friends headed out on Tuesday 15th September to get a first hand insight into the level of waste being produced by Brisbane supermarkets and other food retailers. Over an hour and a half, a convoy of 7 vehicles (a sight to behold in itself) collected enough food to cook up a three course meal . . . a delicious potato and tomato curry, salad, served with freshly toasted turkish bread with avocado, and fruit salad for dessert. We were able to wash it all down with soft drinks also procured from the bin! Looking forward to hearing more from those who also shared in this adventure, please share your thoughts here.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Time for Technology Democracy
Here are my thoughts on the recent antics by the Federal Government to 'engage' the public around highly controversial technologies, including genetic engineering and nanotechnologies.
Democratic governments chant public engagement as the cornerstone of sound political decision making. This mantra was heard in Western Australia last week, at an address by Senator the Hon Kim Carr to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy. In his speech, Carr described the Federal Labor Government’s commitment to social democratic processes. He claimed this commitment to social democracy as a vital process for ensuring policy-making agendas move beyond economic priorities to consider a broader range of social, cultural and political issues. Carr himself admitted that despite Federal Government commitment to these ideals, there is still “a long way to go” to realise these. Casting a critical eye over recent attempts at public engagement related to Australia’s emerging technologies indicates we are even further from technology democracy than Carr and his Department would like to admit.
The Australian Government’s repeated commitment to technology democracy – including commitments to engage the public as part of the policymaking cycle – looks more like smoke and mirrors than real social democracy. Communities are being kept in the dark, they are being given little opportunity to have their say about highly controversial technologies, meanwhile industry continues to roll out new technologies – virtually unregulated, untested and unlabelled.
Lets consider the Federal Government’s recently announced ‘National Enabling Technologies Strategy’ to explore the paradox between Carr’s promises and actual policymaking processes. To clarify, the Federal Government has labelled biotechnologies and nanotechnologies as ‘enabling technologies’. Both these areas of science are highly controversial, raising as they do multiple and diverse social, health, economic, ethical and environmental issues.
Given the highly controversial nature of biotechnology and nanotechnology, it is not surprising the National Enabling Technologies Strategy makes a stated commitment to engage the public as part of the policy process. However, in reality this public engagement is simply not happening. As a result, Australians will have little opportunity to contribute to the development of policy related to these new technologies –despite the profound impacts they are likely to present for all Australians.
I would like to turn to the specific impacts associated with nanotechnologies – or the ‘science of the small’. Nanoparticles and nano-processes are being widely incorporated across the health, energy, military, food and agriculture sectors, amongst others. Given the diversity of these applications, Australians are already being exposed to nanotechnologies, with products derived from nanotechnology found in hundreds of sunscreens, cosmetics, clothes, paints, household appliances, building materials and other products many of us use every day.
These applications introduce new health and environment risks to which we all face exposure, with recent research demonstrating some ‘nanomaterials’ present similar health risks to asbestos, even causing mesothelioma in test mice.
Despite persisting concerns about safety risks, there is still no nano-specific safety assessment in place for any of these products. In addition, most Australians have heard little to nothing about this new technology. Making things worse, nano-products are not labelled. This denies consumers the capacity to make an informed choice about whether they wish to buy nano-products, and denies workers the right to know whether they face occupational exposure. These circumstances also limit the extent to which Australians will be able to develop their ‘nano-literacy’ – or diverse and critical understandings of nanotechnologies. Surely supporting the development of Australia’s nano-literacy will be a central component for ensuring technology democracy?
As a recent participant in the hastily organised ‘stakeholder’ consultation for National Enabling Technologies Strategy, it appears there is little interest in democratic processes. Rather, it appears Government has been swept of its feet by the promises of these new technologies, and is reticent to let democratic processes stand in the way in their roll out. A couple of specific criticisms of this stakeholder process demonstrate this.
Firstly, the organisers of this event have refused to make public minutes from consultations, or submissions made to the consultation – as is standard practice in most inquiries. It is also revealing that in recent meetings held around Australia as part of this process, three times as many consultations have been organised for the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries compared to those for public interest groups.
At a time of unprecedented climate, food, financial, energy and ecological crises, there is an obvious and even urgent need to embrace new approaches and technologies. However the interests and values of the community, not simply those of industry and the research community, must inform decision-making about which technologies we support through investment and commercialisation.
The transformative power of the new nano- and biotechnologies, coupled with the scale of the challenges we face, require that we take the democratisation of science seriously. We need a new way of thinking about science and technology which allows those who are affected by the technology to have a say in its development, and which allows the development of technology to be shaped by the needs and aspirations of the community — not the other way around.
(published in Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Brisbane Times 3 September 2009)
Democratic governments chant public engagement as the cornerstone of sound political decision making. This mantra was heard in Western Australia last week, at an address by Senator the Hon Kim Carr to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy. In his speech, Carr described the Federal Labor Government’s commitment to social democratic processes. He claimed this commitment to social democracy as a vital process for ensuring policy-making agendas move beyond economic priorities to consider a broader range of social, cultural and political issues. Carr himself admitted that despite Federal Government commitment to these ideals, there is still “a long way to go” to realise these. Casting a critical eye over recent attempts at public engagement related to Australia’s emerging technologies indicates we are even further from technology democracy than Carr and his Department would like to admit.
The Australian Government’s repeated commitment to technology democracy – including commitments to engage the public as part of the policymaking cycle – looks more like smoke and mirrors than real social democracy. Communities are being kept in the dark, they are being given little opportunity to have their say about highly controversial technologies, meanwhile industry continues to roll out new technologies – virtually unregulated, untested and unlabelled.
Lets consider the Federal Government’s recently announced ‘National Enabling Technologies Strategy’ to explore the paradox between Carr’s promises and actual policymaking processes. To clarify, the Federal Government has labelled biotechnologies and nanotechnologies as ‘enabling technologies’. Both these areas of science are highly controversial, raising as they do multiple and diverse social, health, economic, ethical and environmental issues.
Given the highly controversial nature of biotechnology and nanotechnology, it is not surprising the National Enabling Technologies Strategy makes a stated commitment to engage the public as part of the policy process. However, in reality this public engagement is simply not happening. As a result, Australians will have little opportunity to contribute to the development of policy related to these new technologies –despite the profound impacts they are likely to present for all Australians.
I would like to turn to the specific impacts associated with nanotechnologies – or the ‘science of the small’. Nanoparticles and nano-processes are being widely incorporated across the health, energy, military, food and agriculture sectors, amongst others. Given the diversity of these applications, Australians are already being exposed to nanotechnologies, with products derived from nanotechnology found in hundreds of sunscreens, cosmetics, clothes, paints, household appliances, building materials and other products many of us use every day.
These applications introduce new health and environment risks to which we all face exposure, with recent research demonstrating some ‘nanomaterials’ present similar health risks to asbestos, even causing mesothelioma in test mice.
Despite persisting concerns about safety risks, there is still no nano-specific safety assessment in place for any of these products. In addition, most Australians have heard little to nothing about this new technology. Making things worse, nano-products are not labelled. This denies consumers the capacity to make an informed choice about whether they wish to buy nano-products, and denies workers the right to know whether they face occupational exposure. These circumstances also limit the extent to which Australians will be able to develop their ‘nano-literacy’ – or diverse and critical understandings of nanotechnologies. Surely supporting the development of Australia’s nano-literacy will be a central component for ensuring technology democracy?
As a recent participant in the hastily organised ‘stakeholder’ consultation for National Enabling Technologies Strategy, it appears there is little interest in democratic processes. Rather, it appears Government has been swept of its feet by the promises of these new technologies, and is reticent to let democratic processes stand in the way in their roll out. A couple of specific criticisms of this stakeholder process demonstrate this.
Firstly, the organisers of this event have refused to make public minutes from consultations, or submissions made to the consultation – as is standard practice in most inquiries. It is also revealing that in recent meetings held around Australia as part of this process, three times as many consultations have been organised for the nanotechnology and biotechnology industries compared to those for public interest groups.
At a time of unprecedented climate, food, financial, energy and ecological crises, there is an obvious and even urgent need to embrace new approaches and technologies. However the interests and values of the community, not simply those of industry and the research community, must inform decision-making about which technologies we support through investment and commercialisation.
The transformative power of the new nano- and biotechnologies, coupled with the scale of the challenges we face, require that we take the democratisation of science seriously. We need a new way of thinking about science and technology which allows those who are affected by the technology to have a say in its development, and which allows the development of technology to be shaped by the needs and aspirations of the community — not the other way around.
(published in Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Brisbane Times 3 September 2009)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
