SEPTEMBER 2002 |
From the EXCO:
STANDING COMMITTEE ON AWARDS: It was not possible to award any medals during 2002 since the term of the Awards Committee had expired in 2001. Therefore nominations for the SASAqS Standing Committee on Awards are awaited. All nominations should be sent to the chairman of the committee, Digby Cyrus (mailto:dcyrus@pan.uzulu.ac.za?Subject=SASAqS_Awards) by 31 October 2002. The Standing Committee on Awards shall be constituted as follows: a Chairman, who is the Society Vice-president; a Secretary, who is to be the Hon. Secretary or a Country Representative, and three elected members, who shall be elected for a four-year term.
SASAqS CONFERENCE 2002 – BLOEMFONTEIN: The EXCO wishes to thank Dr. Jan Roos and his organizing committee for arranging such a successful conference during July 2002.
MEMBERSHIP FEES 2002: Due to technical difficulties experienced with handing over of the accounts from the previous EXCO it has not been possible to send out any invoices for 2002 SASAqS membership fees yet. Members who do not require an official invoice prior to paying membership fees are kindly requested to send their annual membership fees (R175.00) to the Honorary Treasurer, SASAqS c/o Dr. Dirk Roux, Environmentek, CSIR, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001. All cheques must be made payable to SASAQS. Please contact Dirk Roux ( mailto:DRoux@csir.co.za?Subject=SASAqS_fees) should you wish to transfer funds electronically into the SASAqS bank account.
Anybody wishing to submit an item for inclusion in the next issue must please email the information to Victor Wepener (mailto:vw@na.rau.ac.za?subject=SASAqSNews) before the 10th of the particular month.
In Brief:
1. River Research: A time for new thinking? – Charles Breen “River researchers are not a homogeneous group. Indeed, as with all ‘ecosystems’ biodiversity contributes to innovation and resilience, and so the diversity we have among river researchers is something to be cherished and protected. So it is that my remarks today are for those who find resonance with them. For many they may hold little relevance.”
This address was presented at the 2002 SASAQS Conference in Bloemfontein. It was suggested that it should be published in the SASAQS Newsletter as a way of encouraging debate
Meetings:
1. SASAqS Annual Conference 2003 – Cape Town (Heather Malan, Department of Zoology, UCT)
Publications:
1. Call for latest research publications by SASAqS members
Job opportunities/ Courses/ Bursaries and Fellowships:
1. Tutored MSc. in Aquatic Health (Department of Zoology RAU – Dr. V. Wepener. See attached document for more details).
2. Call for information on employment opportunities, postgraduate bursaries, post-doc positions and fellowships in aquatic sciences.
< In Brief:
1. River Research: A time for new thinking? – Charles Breen
Introduction
River researchers are not a homogeneous group. Indeed, as with all ‘ecosystems’ biodiversity contributes to innovation and resilience, and so the diversity we have among river researchers is something to be cherished and protected. So it is that my remarks today are for those who find resonance with them. For many they may hold little relevance.
Few would contest that 1994 heralded fundamental changes in South Africa. Some of these have very significant implications for how society perceives river systems, and how use is to be managed. With these changes has come need for new information and understanding, and behaviours as we support the intentions of policy and legislation. It can be argued, therefore, that it is opportune to consider whether the way in which we are presently thinking about river research is appropriate under these changed circumstances. A number of colleagues and I have recently submitted to the Water Research Commission, a draft report entitled A Strategic Review of River Research. I will be drawing on some of the ideas expressed in that report. My intention is to stimulate conversations around three issues: Accountability of researchers; Outputs and/or outcomes; and River ecosystems as production systems.
Accountability
Research is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, and since it is funded largely by civil society, it is a means to achieving ends defined by society. This interpretation of research as a social service is not new. The Center for Research on the Utilisation of Scientific Knowledge argued in the 1970’s that to be effective, research needs to be responsive to social needs. But, is being responsive sufficient? Being responsive does not of necessity, bring with it commitment to providing for social needs. Perhaps that is why Jane Lubchenco in her paper published in Science in 1998 called for much greater commitment from scientists to linking scientific endeavour to the needs of society. She observed that “Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract. This contract represents a commitment on the part of the scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding” (my emphasis). I would go further than this to suggest that it is the responsibility of researchers to strive to anticipate what will be the most pressing problems, and direct research to develop the required ‘fitness to respond’.
Envisaging research in this context suggests two principles that should direct our behaviour:
· Researchers are accountable to civil society; and
· Researchers are accountable for society’s intellectual fitness to respond to the challenges that emerge.
I guess that we are all able to rationalise our research priorities in ways that suggest accountability to civil society and that we are developing a fitness to respond. But, I am not talking here of a need to rationalise. I am suggesting that we need to internalise behaviour patterns that alter, in fundamental ways, the way we approach research design and implementation. It is the difference between doing something to ‘satisfy the granting agency’ and doing something ‘because our principles demand it of us’.
Perhaps I can illustrate my thesis in the following way. Our recently promulgated water law is one that makes us all proud. We reckon that it is going to promote equity, efficiency and sustainability in ways we may never have thought possible. Since it was promulgated by a democratically elected government, it is an expression of society’s wishes. How well prepared are we to respond? What are the compelling issues that we will confront as policy and legislation are put into practice?
Now, if we had internalised the two principles stated above, we would have critically examined our ‘fitness to respond’ and we would be communicating about this and research needs with society, or at least it representatives. How many of us have really thought about what needs to be done?, and how many of us have embellished our current research proposals to suggest that we are being accountable to society, and we are contributing to the necessary ‘fitness to respond’, when in reality we have given it little serious consideration?.
Perhaps your research interest is not closely aligned with matters relating to water policy and legislation. So, let me take another example. Global society, with support from South Africa, has expressed concern about the loss of biodiversity. How many of those of us who use the term biodiversity in research proposals, have really thought about how our research is developing our ‘fitness to respond’ to the loss of biodiversity? How well are we equipping South African society to meet its obligations as a signatory of the Biodiversity Convention?
Whether I look at our response to the water law, the Biodiversity Convention or the SADC Protocol on Shared Water Courses, I come to the same conclusion. We need to show greater accountability to civil society. This is not a technical matter; it’s not about the way we write proposals and reports. It is about the principles that guide our behaviour.
Outputs and/or outcomes
If we accept that we have to redefine the social contract between science and society, then we must consider what it is that society expects from us, and whether we are delivering on expectations.
Incentives and disincentives are powerful tools directing human endeavour and behaviour. For too long the incentives and disincentives for researchers and research managers, have been measured by products such as reports and scientific papers. These are outputs of research, and hardly reflect the intended outcomes that society expects of research. Society does not fund research for outputs, it does so for outcomes. Society anticipates that the findings of research will lever change in behaviour, directing it towards equity, efficiency and sustainable use. These changes in behaviour are the outcomes of research. Clearly this requires us to specifically address how research is to bring about changes in perceptions of what is right and what is wrong, and how behaviour is to change. Obviously, society does not always know what is right or wrong. It funds research so that it will become informed, and thereby change behaviour should that be required.
You might be thinking that this is unrealistic…that this is too much to expect of researchers. Experience suggests that it is not. The manner in which learning, through research, leveraged changes in perceptions leading to fundamental change in the water law is an excellent example.
Four important principles are exhibited by this example:
· It takes time for outputs to be reflected in outcomes;
· Scientists, well some at least, have to engage the processes that leverage outcomes;
· Researchers have to plan research projects and programmes to deliver outcomes as well as outputs; and
· The incentives must be provided to promote commitment to outcomes, and not only to outputs.
I am sure I can hear the groans! How can we do good science and still find the time to engage the processes that transform outputs to outcomes that convince society that it is getting value for expenditure of public funds? We need to consciously identify the steps in the process, and ensure that the right people are doing the right things at the right times. So, we must learn to operate in partnerships, each appreciating the value added by others in the bigger process.
River ecosystems as production systems
If researchers have a ‘unwritten social contract’ that directs them to provide research as a service to society in exchange for public funds, then they have to communicate using common concepts.
Researchers, working with society’s representatives, established the concept of the river as the resource. The question though is do we share a common understanding of what is meant by this?
What might society consider as a resource? A resource would be a good or a service, or a mixture of both. This implies that society sees the river system as a producer of goods and services that are valued, not necessarily in monetary terms, by society. In a sense we are not expected by society, to envisage the intentions of abstracting water from the river and retaining water in the river as serving different purposes. They are both expected to produce goods and services desired and treasured by society. So, as far as society is concerned, the intentions of ‘reserving water for the environment’ are not to ‘protect the environment’ as much as they are to protect the capacity of the system to deliver goods and services to society. This is achieved by providing water of appropriate quality and quantity to ensure proper functioning (ie. to protect the environment). Protecting the environment is a means to the end of securing goods and services in the long term.
Based on this argument we can envisage rivers as ‘production units’ in much the same way as we might an irrigated pasture, or an industry using water abstracted from the river. If we are to communicate consistently with society, then the water left in the river to protect river production, should be the ‘River Resource Reserve’, and not the ‘Environmental Reserve’.
If, as researchers, we were to accept a definition that was explicit about the resource rather than the environment, it seems likely that we would hold a quite different perspective of what society considers are ‘the most pressing problems of the day’. This might bring us closer to researching the intimate connections between ecosystems and human health, which must surely be what society would like to see in return for public expenditure.
Conclusions
Our natural heritage is threatened by the consequences of human behaviour. Since human behaviour is something over which we can have control, our best prospects for reversing the degradation is through research that links human health with environmental health. Society, through its agencies and allocation of public funds and its agencies, expects that research will develop the required fitness to respond. If we are to do this better than we have in the past, we must show greater commitment to understanding what society expects of us, so that we can design and conduct research that delivers more effective solutions faster. We need to communicate in ways that are meaningful for society and we must focus more resources and effort on achieving outcomes in addition to outputs.
The rate of change is such that we need to step up the pace of generating new understanding and leveraging change consequent upon this. This is a formidable challenge for a country with such limited resources. We will not succeed if we do not start to think differently about research.
References
Breen, C M, Cox, D, Dickens, C, Mander, M, Roux, D J, Turton, A, and van Wyk E 2002. Strategic Review of River Research (Final Draft). Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
Lubchenco, J 1998. Entering the Century of the Environment: A new Social Contract for Science. Science 279, 491-497.
Charles Breen
breen@mweb.co.za
< MEETINGS:
1. SASAqS 2003
The next SASAqS conference will be a joint meeting of the Southern African Society of Aquatic Sciences and the Zoological Society of Southern Africa. The meeting is being organised by Dr. Heather Malan and Prof. Charles Griffith of the Zoology Department, UCT. 2003 is the Centenary Year of the UCT Zoology department and this meeting promises to be stimulating occasion. Further details about the meeting will be announced soon, but in the interim remember to keep the 30 June to 4 July clear.
< PUBLICATIONS:
1. PUBLICATIONS BY SOCIETY MEMBERS
All members of the Society are once again invited to send in the references of their latest publications. In this manner other members of the Society can remain updated with the latest research output in aquatic science in South Africa.
< JOB OPPORTUNITIES/ COURSES / BURSARIES AND FELLOWSHIPS:
1. TUTORED MSc in AQUATIC HEALTH
The Department of Zoology at RAU offers a flexible suite of advanced study options: A full-time Master of Science programme completed over one year (February - December) encompassing coursework in aquatic health plus a research project. A two-year part-time Master's programme covering theory as well as a research project. This degree consists of a coursework and research project component. Coursework modules include freshwater and estuarine ecology and management, environmental management, risk assessment of chemicals in the environment, and capita selecta advanced topics in aquatic health. For more information refer to the attached document or contact Dr. V. Wepener ( mailto:vw@na.rau.ac.za?subject=MSc Aquatic Health RAU ).
This section of SASAqS News is aimed at advertising available employment opportunities, courses, postgraduate bursaries, post-doc positions and fellowships in aquatic sciences. All information must please be sent to Victor Wepener ( mailto:vw@na.rau.ac.za?subject=SASAqSNews ) before the 10th of the month.