Today we welcome to the program, Dr Nick Mitchell, founding director of the Integral Science Academy, Nobel Prize winner and Australia’s Chief Scientist to hear about his life, ideas and concerns. Welcome to the program Nick. Your team has just made a breakthrough in solving one of our major environmental problems. You’ve been partying I hear?
You bet. Even scientists let their hair down occasionally you know. I mean, in a six-way race against Europe’s affluent Monsanto empire, a Chinese conglomerate funded by that zany billionaire guy who recently acquired Glaxo Smith-Kline, and three boutique global alliances, it was our team that cracked the jackpot! Yes, of course we celebrated.
It’s meant a lot of hard work and plenty of travel for you and your associates.
Yes indeed. Professor Lin Lynn, one of our most eminent hydrologists and the former chair of the Cooperative Research Centre in Water Futures at Tehran University, and I have spent most of our time during the past three years coordinating the work of our various team leaders - Hiromi in Tokyo, Bob here in Canberra, Vivek in Mumbai, June and Tammy in Boston. I still hate travelling, as Lin would have told you, so I work from Canberra whenever possible, using the resources of the Decision Theater at ANU where I also have a Chair. The air hammocks on Singapore Airworld are quite comfortable I suppose but, unlike Lin, I’ve never been able to sleep in an upright position. I also avoid taking any melatonin you see, so when the lid closes I get this awful sense of claustrophobia. Anyway it’s been a race against time. Our funds were fast drying up. But now we’re on the verge of announcing a solution to one of the world’s most formidable ecological problems.
Nick, before you tell us about that perhaps I should explain to our listeners that we’re talking about salinity. Your desalination process has been successfully tested on some of the world’s most hypersaline areas with unprecedented success.
Yes. Actually the desalination process is only part of the solution. The real breakthrough arose when we married our nano-membrane desalinator (the technology) with “keyline” design principles (the philosophy) and applied this to specific tracts of land identified with the help of detailed intelligence from NRI in Canberra. It was the combination of these things that allowed us to achieve quite extraordinary results.
The success will mean massive profits for your sponsors, Nippon Chemicals & Chemnet and incalculable kudos for you and your team.
That’s correct. Also Vivek’s Research Institute in India and CSIRO here in Australia are likely to reap a bonanza in funding through their strategic partnership with Hoechst. In fact it’s probably the difference between surviving or not for Vivek. So he is over the moon, as you can imagine. Our sponsors are looking at a return on their original investment of something approaching 800% over the next decade.
For a while there it looked as though salinity was the one environmental problem we would not be able to solve. By 2025, dry land salinity had claimed almost 18 per cent of our cultivated land. Salt in Adelaide’s drinking water, where my parents still live, had reached the World Health Organization’s maximum safety levels. It was shocking.
There have been many costly attempts to remedy salinity of course. Possibly the biggest disappointment was the massive and costly Wonthaggi plant that started up in 2012 which was supposed to have had an initial capacity of 410 megalitres a day. Successive governments, as you know, have ploughed more and more money into promising initiatives. I guess they’ve all helped to some extent. Who knows what proportion of our land would be lost without these efforts? But you are correct in that none of them have really cracked the problem in the long-term - until now.
Why do you think that was Nick? What is it in our thinking that focuses on short-term expediency rather than the long-term future?
Oh, hold on. You’re putting words into my mouth. And I can’t accept the proposition that we ignore the long view. Today’s science is a fast moving body of knowledge and we are always finding new ways of combining different aspects of science to create more viable solutions to problems. You’ve only to look at history. It doesn’t matter how tough the problem, science always finds a way of dealing with it. It is this scientific capability that is so beneficial to society.
Can you give our listeners some concrete examples?
Sure. Remember 2008 when we decided to de-stock much of the interior of sheep and cattle on advice from CSIRO researchers? That worked very well in the region and it certainly allowed the recovery of some arid-zone ecosystems and increased organic matter in soils.
As I recall Nick, the social impact on the families who had farmed these lands for generations was calamitous.
Well it’s true we really hadn’t given that side of things much thought. But we’re scientists, not sociologists. We can’t be held accountable for non-scientific problems. And solve scientific problems we do. Take the “daughterless” project for example. In 2010, the introduction of the latest research from leading gene technologists in the UK enabled Aussie farmers to use various anti-fertility techniques, including an immunosterilisation technique known as “daughterless”, to control pests ranging from mice to cane toads. You must remember that? It created quite a hullabaloo in the press. It was very successful.
I do remember that Nick. But I also seem to recall that, although the situation improved for a while, there were some problems associated with these techniques spreading to domestic animals.
Well, yes that was a surprise for us. All of the experimental research indicated that the cross-species transference would be within tolerable limits and would not have a widespread impact on total populations. We are learning that the application of controlled research on a wide scale can have unforeseen impacts. But we always find a solution – just as we did through the development and application of hormone implants in the females of reproductive age. This also helped overcome normal sterility. So I think you’ll agree that the benefits in this case have far outweighed the costs, and produced a valuable new industry for Australia. The sale of implants and implant expertise has reinvigorated several country towns and created a budding new Australian export industry. And there are many other new experiments continuing to show similar promise for the sustainability of the Australian rural sector.
Why don’t we hear much about these experiments? Surely the community has a right to engage in serious debate about such issues, just as scientists have an obligation to explain to us the options we have as a society – especially when it comes to new technologies? How can we the public trust the experts if we aren’t included in the conversation?
It is a challenge for science – to hold back research and implementation when we know there are benefits because we need to engage the community first. I guess scientists are more interested in the science and solving problems than in trying to market our work to the community. There is so much to be done. Spending precious time persuading government and commercial sponsors to put money up for research is bad enough. They certainly won’t entertain the funding of pure research nowadays. There always has to be a commercial outcome to raise any interest at all. So I guess we’ve learned to keep our business out of the public eye until we’re certain it works.
Surely you run a great risk in not including non-scientists in the process?
There are calculated risks in everything we do. I don’t see how including non-scientists can really achieve much other than slowing the process down. Science is difficult for some people to understand. Scientific research is complex work. That is why we have experts. What good does it do to try to explain this to ordinary people? Aren’t we better to find the solutions and then present them to people? Overall I believe the community is interested in our results and the benefits from scientific research. All of our technological developments, scientific breakthroughs, health and aging... All of these are due to the work of our scientists. I’ll agree that we need to communicate better. But it is a perennial dilemma I’m afraid, and one that our commercial backers are not really prepared to fund. Its solutions they demand - not public relations. Look, scientists have tried hundreds of things that you won’t necessarily have heard about. Take feral pests for instance. Wild cats, rabbits, cane toads… Now there’s a problem. We’ve trying everything we know to combat that one. Your airwaves would be clogged if we talked about every approach that we’ve ever tried!
But in spite of all these efforts, the cane toad problem today is far worse than it’s ever been!
Indeed. It is proving to be a diabolical problem. But there are promising research indications that the borscevits strain of blood sucking insects imported from Antigua might combat the growing plague. There are a number of other promising approaches each looking at specific aspects such as diet, predators and habitat. It is a difficult issue but I’m optimistic that we will find an answer sooner or later. You must remember that we’ve achieved an enormous amount during the past 25 years. I’m thinking of organic fertilisers, satellite resource intelligence, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy... The public recognises the value of robust science, and when provided with good evidence will support it. They will even change their minds about some things. Remember the public outcry in the first decade of the new millennium over genetically modified foods! Most fresh produce and processed foods are genetically modified now. The initial public outcry was just because people were misinformed – they didn’t have all the facts. Greenies on a mission, I always said! We have to be realistic. People can rely on science to provide huge benefits for society. For example, we’ve enriched oilseed with omega-3 fatty acids to ward off cardiovascular disease and created drought-resistant cereals. It’s all environmentally benign agriculture naturally. What’s more Australia is now recognised as one of the most efficient producers of GM foods in the world. Where would we be without those exports!
I’ve always understood that the shift away from intensive farming techniques in 2005, coupled with the complete ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, was really just following the lead set by the EU in 2004?
That is partly true. This policy actually came about as a result of pressure from the EU. They asked the WTO to examine the legality of Australia’s strict quarantine regulations, claiming the process was nothing more than disguised protectionism. That was a difficult one for the Minister as she had to squeeze free trade and Australia’s “clean and green” image into the same quarantine bottle! Then there was the BSE outbreak in the EU, you’ll recall. All was well for a time, although it was a bit of a balancing act. But there were good scientific reasons for the use of antibiotics, as was proven by the particularly nasty outbreak of Salmonella poisoning that led to the collapse of the Australian pork industry. Now everyone is eating GM soybean that looks and tastes like pork. So it has found public acceptance now – thanks to another scientific discovery that created another Australian industry and saved a whole community.
Now that everything in our lives is so commercial (even scientific research and technology is motivated by short-term profit) how does your Institute find funding to work on those projects that may be less commercial, but socially desirable? How do you fund the work you are doing in Africa, for example.
As I said before, there is no such thing as pure scientific research these days. There are simply no resources available for things like that, unless you can find a private benefactor of course. The people who get the grants are those that large corporations will back. So we are forced to focus on the more commercial outcomes of our work. This becomes a barrier when commercial profit is finite. Our African project is a good example. We’ve been using a combination of gene cloning and biomimicry techniques to try and find solutions to some of Africa’s most scary health problems. This is leading-edge stuff. Historically there has been no money available for this kind of thing because those people most in need, African peasants, can’t afford to pay for the solution. When profit is the only motive it is inevitable that society as a whole suffers. And they demand profits – they don’t sense a responsibility to provide health care for Africans. These days the only way to work on these problems is when political will bows to the pragmatic entrepreneur – in this case the Gates-Buffet Foundation, which has a record of assisting the world’s poor.
And yet, isn’t it ironic that if account were taken of our rampant use of polluting fossil fuels, industrialized countries would have totted up an environmental debt of around one thousand billion dollars to the highly indebted poor nations, such as those in Africa.
Yes indeed, it doesn’t make sense does it? But on a more positive note, those countries have also benefited from the science. Increasingly, globalization has brought new industry, new crops and new water technologies to poorer countries. So they are benefiting too. And the salinity project will eventually have spin-offs for the drought stricken countries of the third world. Now that we have a commercial solution and are in production, the technology will become more widely available. I understand negotiations are currently underway to begin production of the nanomembrane in several developing countries.
Nick, now that the salinity project is coming to a conclusion, at least from a research point of view, can you tell us what is next in the pipeline?
I feel an obligation to help reverse the decision that was made way back in 2015 when a meeting of some of the world’s leading scientists in Luxembourg voted to abandon the so-called “precautionary principle” that has guided scientific endeavor for the past couple of centuries.
Why did they take this risk?
At the time most scientists, and politicians for that matter, felt a need to focus all available resources and energy on a massive effort to overcome the planet’s worst environmental and health problems. We needed solutions and we needed them fast. Remember global warming and pollution had become a real threat by then. In Australia we’d already lost the battle to save the Great Barrier Reef and salinity was considered a lost cause. So there was nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Was there any single factor informing that decision?
It depends upon your point of view. It’s true that from around 2030 the various forms of human cloning and stem cell farming being practiced precipitated a few problems we hadn’t foreseen. One of these was a new family of mutant viruses. As usual, the alarmist media hype backed the scientific community into a corner and I think it was the reaction of some prominent scientists to that issue which resulted in the Luxembourg decision. A few skeptics warned of dire consequences. But scientists have always had immense confidence in robust science. We know that science can solve most of the world’s problems - sooner or later. And at the time I think we genuinely thought that these few instances arose from a small number of research projects that turned out not to be as sound as we had thought. If the science is sound, then the risk is small. Unfortunately though, it seems that many of the solutions adopted, especially by some small commercially minded labs in the Eastern European Union and the US, weren’t adequately tested before being brought into use. The commercial pressure to get to market, together with the releasing of controls… Well, as you can see I think it was a bad decision. As a result a few chronic ailments have emerged that we don’t fully understand. And there are some outbreaks of old diseases, like hepatitis C, for example, that have come back to haunt us in new guises. But there are numerous research projects focusing on these issues and I am confident that we will crack them very shortly.
Doesn’t that mean that abandoning the “precautionary principle” was rather reckless?
I don’t know that it was reckless. I think at the time that we thought it was an acceptable risk. The need for the solutions was so great - remember we were faced with very big environmental and health problems. And initial research findings were so promising. You’re right that there were instances where we were proven wrong. But you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.
I’m not sure that Janine Field, the Fox News journalist who contracted a new form of hepatitis, despite being inoculated before an assignment in Afghanistan, would agree with you – or the thousands of people who took the same Merck vaccine in good faith.
Yes this was an unfortunate instance, but I don’t think you can blame science for this one. I understand that Ms Field has sued Merck & Co, who made the vaccine and that they recalled batches of ineffective hepatitis in pre-filled syringes in March. You’ll recall that the suit, filed in New York State Supreme Court, claims Merck "negligently manufactured, distributed and sold the recalled vaccine which provided absolutely no protection against the disease".. So let’s be quite clear, this is obviously the result of poor manufacturing and quality control, not poor science. That said, I do believe that the commercial pressure on science now to get to market quickly, and the removal of controls over production and distribution of scientific products, allows for less than desirable practices. I would like to see some control over those things, to put the brakes on just a little so that situations like this don’t happen.
And on the environmental front we are still left with impending ecological disaster if we don’t act quickly?
Yes. Things do go in cycles don’t they?
So what’s the answer?
The attack on scientific expertise is insidious as it is an attack on excellence and rational thinking per se. We must remember that science is impartial and objective. It is the only logical basis we have for decision-making. So attacking science gets us nowhere. I guess I would advocate a more rational approach and a return to the past in terms of the “precautionary principle”. Now is the time to be providing the time and the frameworks for sound scientific research, reinforcing the need for robust thinking, and sufficient testing. We need to ensure good science, not undermine all science.
But do we have the luxury of time to be so cautious?
Possibly not. But I really know of no better way.
Dr Nick Mitchell, thanks so much for your time today. And as for your exotic viruses project, I’m sure our listeners empathize with your efforts to help the world’s poor in ways that contribute to their quality of life. Good luck.
Next week on this program we will be talking to NASA scientist James Goode about his work on the self-repairing chemical lasers currently deployed in the Earth’s atmosphere to protect us from the terrorist activities of rogue states. This is Harry Drummond signing off for today. Take care and stay happy…
