5th World Conference of Science Journalists

PRODUCER: Rada Rouse, Medical Observer
CHAIR: Pallab Ghosh, BBC (UK)
SPEAKERS: Gus Nossal, consultant, WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and Ian Frazer,UQ Director, Diamantina Institute for Cancer Immunology and Metabolic Medicine

“Vaccines buy you a lot of health for a small amount of money,” says renowned immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal.

Trouble is, there are still not enough dollars devoted to vaccine research and development, let alone to delivering products to countries where they matter most to counter the global burden of disease.

And it’s not just money or science that governs the place of vaccination in public health: emotion is a potent driver. Public support for vaccination ebbs and flows. Fear that polio vaccine is being used as a genocidal weapon has plunged vaccination programs into chaos in Nigeria and the Indian sub-continent. Fear that vaccines were causing an epidemic of autism led millions in the USA and UK to reject vaccination of their children.

The production and distribution of vaccines can also become mired in public relations battles, patent wars and politics.

This session will examine how science can be overwhelmed by other forces, and what may be in store in future.

Gus Nossal is a leading figure in immunology and has played a prominent international role in disease eradication through the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ian Frazer is the co-inventor of the virus-like particles technology that underpins the world’s first vaccine against the human papilloma virus which causes cervical cancer.

Pallab Ghosh is science correspondent for BBC News and a member of the executive board of the World Federation of Science Journalists.

PRODUCER: Richard Jefferson

SESSION REPORT: Thinking positively patents

By Graeme Stemp-Morlock

Everything is patented, especially in the life sciences. It seems every time an institution finds a gene it immediately patents it and sells it to some company. But, this is incredibly problematic for those people who need this technology but can’t afford it.

Richard Jefferson has an idea of how to do away with patents, or at least create a sort of open source biotechnology. “A patent is a device to deny access,” said Jefferson. “You disclose your information and in return the state allows you to monopolize that information for a certain number of years.”

Jefferson believes that this system is not only outdated, but costing the health and lives of millions who can’t benefit from this knowledge. So, he suggests patenting everything.

Say what?

That’s right, he suggests patenting everything, but instead of demanding money for the use of your patent you demand a code of behavior. So, group B uses the information from group A that has a patent dictating behavior. In return, group B must allow group C, D, E, or whoever to use the information they discover from using group A’s patent. In other words, all the information becomes open access much like open access computer software.

This system would work exceedingly well if one gets around the most basic level of biotechnology, the use of the Agrobacterium for gene transfer. By using an alternate method of transfer everything discovered in this method could become open source.

In total this would mean that not only would biotechnology be available to the masses who don’t have the resources to afford the tools, but it becomes a lot more profitable. “Biotechnology is a really good way to lose your money because it has the wrong focus,” said Jefferson. “It should be focused on the building not the tools.”

If Jefferson has his way, public institutions will start patenting their discoveries with codes of behaviors, then the tools could be used by any and all and biotechnology might really achieve the promise we all dream of.

 Coal: fuel of the future [88:12m]: Download

PRODUCER: Michelle Riedlinger

CHAIR: Bernie Hobbs,

SPEAKERS: Peter Cook, Doug Holden, Ian Lowe, Wang Yu

SESSION REPORT: Leading edge technologies maximize coal efficiency

By Jia Hepeng

More efficient use of coal, using new technologies, provides cheaper energy and reduces carbon dioxide emissions, according to the panel discussion at this session.

Peter Cook, head of CO2 Cooperative Research Centre of Australia predicts that the world’s use of coal will continue to grow, to 10.5 billion tons in 2030, despite its dwindling share in the world energy market.

He said, “The future of coal depends on costs, capacity, cleaner technologies and the availability of new energy sources.”

Increased coal consumption is thought to be a major contributor to increased carbon dioxide — global warming. As Australia faces increasing pressure, internationally and domestically, to cut carbon emissions, the call to reduce coal consumption and production has been growing.

However, Cook notes, studies show that a 50 percent increase in coal burning efficiency delivers up to three percent reduction of carbon emission per unit of coal consumption. With more new technologies, which dramatically increase coal efficiency, coal can “continue to be a reliable, securable, sustainable and clean energy.”

Australia’s heavy reliance on coal is shared by other countries, particularly China.
Wang Yu, a Chinese energy journalist from Beijing-based China Daily, revealed that in 2006, China produced 2 billion tons of coal, with two thirds of this used for electricity generation. In the near future, it is unlikely to reduce the world’s economic powerhouse’s reliance on coal.

While welcoming researches on cleaner coal, Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, complained that too many resources have been given to the sector, while research and development funding for sustainable energy is too small.

Lowe refutes the saying that Australians rely on coal for their jobs, saying the renewable clean technologies, such as growing plant for biofuels, are more labour intensive and hence the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energies will not result in lost jobs.

 Wildfire: friend or foe? Lessons from a dry continent [87:10m]: Download

PRODUCER: Barbie McKaige,
SPEAKERS: Ross Bradstock, Dick Williams, Kevin Hennessy, Garry Cook, Peter Christophersen, John Schauble

CHAIR: Derek Guille

PANEL: Kevin O’Loughlin

SESSION REPORT: Burn, baby, burn

By Brendan Borrell

As that 40-foot wall of fire closes in on your uninsured home, it’s important to remind yourself that wildfires have been humanity’s erstwhile companion on the ecological landscape for thousands of years.

In this session, a panel of scientists outlined some of the benefits of that friendship and strategies for living with fire in the 21st century.

“Bushfires are not necessarily ecological disasters,” said Ross Bradstock of University of Wollongong, “In fact fires in these environments may be determinants of diversity.”

Aboriginal peoples, for instance, have long used fires to clear choking vegetation from savannahs and wetlands, which increases plant diversity and, consequently, populations of game animals. Sadly, much of that traditional knowledge has been forgotten, but Peter Christophersen of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems related his work restoring such practices to aboriginal communities in and around Kakadu National Park.

Dick Williams, also at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, further discussed the role of traditional knowledge in a prescribed burn program in Northern Australia. Bushfires account for half of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and as the climate grows hotter and drier, finding ways to manage — though not extinguish — natural wildfires is going to be more crucial.

In spite of these benefits, suburban dwellers may still be leery of welcoming wildfire into their neighborhoods. But John Schauble of the Country Fire Authority dispelled some myths about wildfire, including that nightmarish image of a wall of flame inching up on our homes.

Ninety percent of homes catch fire due to ember attack, he said and the “chance of being killed by bushfires is statistically very slight.” What this means is that in most cases, it is quite easy to stay and defend your home from fire provided you’ve had some basic training. He added the most dangerous thing you can do is evacuate at the last minute.

Whether we like it or not, fires are here to stay, the scientists agreed. Let’s try and make friends.