Features

Last week the scientists behind two recent publications on carbon emissions urged negotiators at the Bonn climate talks to make phasing out CO2 emissions altogether part of any future strategy.

Myles Allen and David Frame of Oxford University were amongst those who took the unusual step of writing an open letter to policy-makers.

In the letter the team ask those devising targets to take into account their research which shows an upper limit of one trillion tonnes of carbon. If cumulative carbon emissions exceed this limit the world is likely to suffer dangerous global warming of 2 degrees Celsius.

‘In addition to setting targets for emissions in 2020 and 2050, we feel the UNFCCC process should acknowledge that avoiding dangerous climate change will require emissions of the longest-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide eventually to cease altogether,’ Myles Allen of Oxford’s Department of Physics commented. 

In the open letter the scientists warn: 'fossil carbon reserves substantially exceed the amount that can safely be released into the atmosphere. Net global carbon dioxide emissions will eventually have to decline towards zero leaving a substantial fraction of available fossil carbon stored, in some form, out of the atmosphere indefinitely.'

'We urge the participants in December's Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative carbon dioxide emissions as one element of their vision for long-term cooperative action to avoid dangerous climate change.' 

It's probably not something that governments around the world want to hear as they struggle to meet their modest emissions reductions commitments whilst trying to drag their economies out of recession.

Yet what the latest science is telling us is that, as Myles puts it, 'climate policy needs an exit strategy': in other words we need to imagine an end to emissions - a lower carbon economy doesn't actually solve the problem that the atmosphere is a finite resource which will, if we carry on emitting, run out of spare capacity.

It's perhaps a wake-up call to those who think that simply modifying our energy habits will get us out of our current predicament: we need to lower emissions now but we also need to plan an escape route to a zero carbon future.

Dr Myles Allen is based at the Department of Physics whilst Dr David Frame is Deputy Director of the Oxford University Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

This week our fickle attitude to the wildlife around us was highlighted in two stories: one about the reintroduction of beavers to the US, the other about a proposed cull of grey squirrels in the UK.

In both cases, it seems, the line between a wildlife treasure that must be saved and an animal pest that must be eliminated is perilously narrow: become too successful as a species and you'll become an expensive inconvenience for humans - the lesson is: 'stay rare and we'll care!'

I think part of the problem is that we've failed to accept that, in a world where space and resources are at a premium, saving wildlife always comes at a cost.

This cost is more obvious in places such as Africa where, as highlighted by work by Oxford scientists on a beehive fence to deter elephants, coming up with solutions that enable wild animals and humans to coexist is often a matter of life or death for both parties - with elephants at risk of being shot and local people at risk of losing the crops they need to survive.

In countries such as the UK and the US humans have the upper hand having, over thousands of years, transformed much of the landscape - and its ecosystems - in a way that is convenient for us and getting annoyed with the animal 'pests' that dare to change it to suit themselves.

Maybe we could learn something from the efforts in Africa about how understanding animal behaviour can help us change the way we do things so that animals and people can get along.

For instance: what would scare away a beaver from building dams where we don't want them to? What should be eating grey squirrels but isn't? (probably because we haven't given such predators the space and resources to survive).

Perhaps, instead of blacklisting some species as 'pests', we need an animal version of détente in which we agree the zones of influence we're willing to give up to wildlife and be honest about the price we're willing to pay for biodiversity in our own backyard.

Turning new discoveries into new businesses is one way many people think that the UK can haul itself out of the economic downturn.

Professor Peter Dobson, Director of Oxford University's Begbroke Science Park, is closely involved in many aspects of enterprise and entrepreneurship and has just coordinated a new course for Oxford's MPLS Division on this topic.

I quizzed him about the challenges of launching university spin-out firms and what support Oxford can give to business-minded scientists:

OxSciBlog: What's the biggest challenge facing scientists who want to spinout a company from their research?
Peter Dobson: They have to establish that there is a market need for their idea or product arising from the idea: it is one thing to have made a ground-breaking scientific discovery, with several papers in top journals, but quite another to turn that discovery into an "invention" that can be used to develop a new product that people will buy.

Scientists at Oxford University are fortunate in having a large support network to help them. This network is made up of Oxford Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, based in the Business School; the department of Continuing Professional Development that puts on courses such as the one mentioned above; Isis Innovation, the company owned by the University to assist in the exploitation process; a very supportive Research Services Office that monitors all the incoming funding and agreements, and the Begbroke Science Park.

OSB: How can Begbroke help budding science entrepreneurs?
PD: The Begbroke Science Park can help to provide space at the very initial stage of the formation of a company. There is also a support team there that can help with these early stages. Members of the team also contribute to the other activities in the University, especially by delivering introductory courses on enterprise and entrepreneurship.

OSB: What makes it different from other science or business parks?
PD: Begbroke has a mixture of small high technology companies and University research activities. It has grown around the world-class Department of Materials facilities which in themselves are now part of a national network of nanotechnology research. The BegbrokeNano characterisation service offers one of the most comprehensive set of micro/nano analysis for materials in the world. This in turn attracts companies to the site or to set-up nearby. Most of the University research on the site is very applied and multi-disciplinary, providing a very dynamic and exciting environment.

OSB: What skills do scientists need to learn to succeed in a business environment?
PD: Scientists need to listen and learn, and try to apply their knowledge to "finding solutions". They should try to engage with as many people as they can, get out of the research lab, talk to people in sales and marketing, talk to decision-makers, local and regional government. This external engagement will be most valuable, it may convince them to stay in the research lab, but more often it will encourage them to apply their know-how to help business and society!

OSB: How does the 'Oxford Model' work and how might it be exported elsewhere?
PD: I think that the Oxford Model is within the way that the University has made very generous provision for the management and exploitation of any intellectual property arising from academic activities, coupled with the linkage between all of the organisations mentioned in the first question. It can be exported and is actively being followed in most UK Universities, albeit not quite so vigorously, and overseas.

OSB: What could be done to enable more UK spinout companies to prosper?
PD: The recession has exposed how fragile high technology spin-out companies are, especially in the early years. The UK Government could help by being more adventurous with financial support, for premises, for R&D grants and tax credits. There could also be a huge benefit if Government procurement was designed in a way to benefit some of the exciting new breakthrough technologies, especially in areas such as healthcare. Currently many of our small companies cannot rely on good captive home markets and have to launch their business in the US.  

‘We are all synaesthetes to some extent,’ says Professor Charles Spence of the Department of Experimental Psychology.

Synaesthesia is a neurological condition that often involves a ‘blending of the senses’. It is thought to affect less than 1% of the population, and people experience it in a variety of ways.

Some people may ‘see’ sounds, in that hearing sounds triggers them to see particular colours at the same time, while others might experience colours while reading simple black text. Whatever the sensory connections an individual experiences, it is always the same – particular tones or words will stimulate precisely the same colours or tastes. [For more on the condition, listen to Professor Irene Tracey on Inside Oxford Science]

What Charles Spence and colleague Cesare Parise have shown is that everybody’s brain automatically combines sights and sounds that are likely to be related in a similar way. Their findings are published in the journal PLoS One.

The researchers suggest the brain has evolved this ability to merge related information from different senses so it can effectively pick its way through all the sounds, sights and sensations the body is constantly bombarded with.

‘It’s why at a noisy cocktail party you can tell who is speaking with which voice. And it’s why you can picture the size of a dog by hearing its growl – the brain associates a low note or sound with a large object,’ says Professor Spence.

Professor Spence and Cesare Parise sat 12 volunteers in front of a screen and gave them headphones. They presented the volunteers with an image at a slightly different time to a sound tone of a certain frequency, and asked them which came second. In a second experiment, they then played sounds at different positions to the left or right of the image, and asked the volunteer which side it came from.

All the volunteers considered certain images and sounds to be associated, such as small shapes and high pitched tones, or conversely large shapes and a low pitches (see video). Similarly, sharp irregular shapes are connected to high pitches while more curved shapes go with low pitches.

When the image and sound were related like this, the brain tended to process the information together and the volunteers were much less able to tell which came second, or where the sound came from.

‘Knowing how the brain connects information from different senses, we should be able to design warning signals that combine lights and sounds to really drive attention and get people to respond swiftly and accurately,’ says Cesare Parise. ‘This could be really important in an aircraft cockpit, for example, where a pilot has to deal with a great deal of information all at once.’

‘Or synaesthetic associations could be exploited to develop more effective sensory substitution devices for people who are deaf or blind.’

Professor Spence gives another example: ‘We are currently working with Heston Blumenthal to come up with appropriate names for some of the dishes at his restaurant The Fat Duck, in Bray. For example, we find that people tend to associate the sound of a word like ‘bubu’ more with soft, creamy textures like brie and ‘kiki’ with the sharp taste of cranberries, say. So maybe we could come up with appropriate names to fit with a soft ice cream that actually has an acidic note in tasting it, or a dish with a sharp texture but a creamy taste.’

Image above: Wensleydale with cranberries: ‘bubu’ or ‘kiki’?

Last week you'll probably have read some of these stories about ducks.

Unfortunately, whilst these reports were a gift for pun-writers, they failed to reflect the serious nature of this research into improving the welfare of farm animals.

Marian Stamp Dawkins of Oxford's Department of Zoology led the research, which was published in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour, and below she tells us why the research was necessary and what it revealed:

Marian Stamp Dawkins: 'Our research is based on the idea that if we really want to improve farm animal welfare, we need sound evidence (as opposed to just speculation) about what good welfare is. We also have to see animal welfare as part of a package of other important components including human health, care for the environment and (essential but often neglected), a decent living for farmers.'

'The welfare of commercially farmed ducks provides a classic example of how unexpectedly difficult it can be to find a way forward that satisfies all elements of the package. I am not talking about keeping small numbers of ducks in a back garden. I am talking about large scale intensive farms where thousands of ducks may be kept in one house.'

'About 18 million ducks are reared in this way in the UK each year. They grow to slaughter weight in just 9 weeks and although some have troughs in which they can dip their heads, access to water for many is through overhead nipple drinkers. The ducks peck at the nipples for large droplets of drinking water.'

'Now, here is the dilemma. The commercial duck producers would very much like to provide ducks with bathing water but – and this is what is so often misunderstood – doing so brings health and welfare problems with it. Ducks defecate in ponds which means that even clean water potentially becomes contaminated with Campylobacter and other organisms that cause food poisoning in humans. The ducks drink it and it gets in their eyes and feathers. Even with troughs that they can only dip their heads into, water often splashes onto the floor, making it wet and soggy. Cleaning the water repeatedly uses vast quantities of water and disposing of the dirty water is an even greater ecological problem.'

'Duck producers and retailers want to be able to improve duck welfare but don’t know how without running into possibly worse problems. So what are they to do?'

'The foundation of good welfare is good health but for most people ‘good welfare’ means more than just not being diseased or injured. It also means that the animals have a good quality of life – in other words that they have what they want most and are not deprived of things that are important to them. Our work was concerned to help the producers find a ‘package’ that suited everyone – something that the farmers could use in a practical way, that would not have the health hazards of stagnant ponds and that gave the ducks what they wanted from a bathe.'

'So what we had to find out was whether we could find a method of water delivery that was more hygienic and less wasteful of water than ponds and still satisfied duck welfare. To do this, we needed to try out different ways of providing bathing water such as showers (hoses with irrigation nozzles), troughs and small ponds to see how the ducks responded because many peoples’ first reaction is that ducks must be given ponds, even though there is no scientific evidence to back this up.'

'So how did the ducks rank a shower (more hygienic and economical) against actual bathing in a pond? Pretty highly, it turned out. Their health was good and they spend even more time with showers than with the ponds when given the choice. We found no evidence of them being deprived of anything if they just had showers. On the contrary, showers were, from their point of view and ours, a very good substitute.'

'To ensure that our work was directly relevant to real duck farming, we worked from the beginning with large commercial producers, who have been encouraging and supportive all along because they want to find a solution to the dilemma as much as anyone else. They gave us no financial support (that would have compromised the neutrality of the study) but were extremely helpful in allowing us to carry out an assessment of duck health and welfare on their farms.'

'The 3 year study, which consisted of the farm assessment of duck welfare and behaviour, plus two large trials, was financed by Defra and was completed on time and on budget. There will be three other scientific publications besides this first one, including a report of the current state of health and welfare of ducks on commercial farms, a detailed analysis of  sequences of bathing behaviour, a study of the extent to which the birds try to synchronize their behaviour and a quantitative analysis of motivation. In addition there are clear indications to duck producers and to legislators as to how duck welfare can be improved in practice.'

'Scientists are supposed to publicise their research and I only hope that that the publicity caused by the extraordinary media distortion of this study will, in the long run, benefit the one group that the work was aimed at in the first place – the ducks themselves.'

Professor Marian Stamp Dawkins is based at Oxford's Department of Zoology