Search Results

< Back to Issue 7 Neuralink: Mind Over Matter? by Kara Miwa-Dale 22 October 2024 edited by Weilena Liu illustrated by Aisyah Mohammad Sulhanuddin What if I told you that you could control a computer mouse with just your thoughts? It sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi movie, doesn’t it? But this isn’t fiction… Welcome to the brain-computer interface, a device which is able to record and interpret neural activity in the brain, enabling direct communication between your mind and a computer. Tech billionaire Elon Musk founded ‘Neuralink’, a company developing coin-sized brain-chips that can be surgically inserted into the brain using a robot. Neuralink made headlines a few months ago by successfully implanting their brain-chip, dubbed ‘Telepathy’, into their first trial patient, Noland Arbaugh. While there were a few technical glitches, it seems to be working relatively well so far. Noland has been able to regain some of the autonomy that he lost following a devastating spinal cord injury. He is even able to play video games with a superhuman-like reaction speed, thanks to the more direct communication route between the Neuralink implant and his computer. But it doesn’t stop there; Elon Musk’s ultimate vision is to have millions of people using Neuralink in the next 10 years, not only to restore autonomy to those with serious injuries, but to push the boundaries of what the human brain is capable of. He thinks that Neuralink will allow us to compete with AI and vastly improve our speed and efficiency of communication, which is ‘pitifully slow’ in comparison to AI. Neuralink implants may seem like an incredible leap in scientific technology, but what will happen if they become normalised in our society? Let’s imagine for a moment … Jade, April 7th 2044 Shoving my jacket into my bag, I dart out of the hospital and pull onto the main road in my Tesla. As I speed past the intersection, I see a giant advertisement plastered on a sleek building: ‘Neuralink: Seamless Thoughts, Limitless Possibilities’. When I signed up to get a Neuralink implant, all I’d thought about were the infinite possibilities of how it would change my life – not what could go wrong. I wish I could say that I was brainwashed into getting a Neuralink, or that I had no choice in the matter. But the truth? I got an implant so that I could be ‘ahead of the crowd’ and because I was so frustrated at feeling inadequate compared to the other doctors at my hospital. When I graduated medical school, at the top of my class, people told me that I would do ‘great things’ and ‘change the world’. I followed the standard path, landing my first job and climbing the ranks one caffeine-fuelled shift at a time. I loved my job. Every time I saved a life, it felt like all my effort had paid off. Then Neuralink happened. I still remember the day Dr Maxwell - a doctor I worked with - proudly announced that he’d ‘bitten the bullet’ and gotten the implant. Over the coming weeks, we watched in awe: his diagnoses were quicker and more accurate than any human could imagine, and he went home as energetic as he’d arrived. Now, the extra hours I spent figuring out tricky cases were no longer a representation of my work ethic, but a symptom of my inadequacy compared to the Neuralink-enhanced doctors. One by one, my colleagues signed up for the implant. I hated the thought of having something foreign nestled in my brain, recording my brain’s neurons every second of the day. I told myself I wouldn’t let peer pressure get to me. But, as I watched those around me get promoted while I continued to work endless days, the frustration started to build. One afternoon, the department head came into my office to tell me that they were reconsidering the renewal of my contract. I wasn’t ‘keeping up’ with my Neuralink-enhanced colleagues. “We respect your personal decision, of course,” she said with hollow politeness. I wasn’t keen on being pressured into it, but at the same time, I genuinely believed that the implant would improve my life. When I told my friends and family about getting an implant, they were concerned. They tried to list all the things that could go wrong, but I came up with enough reasons to convince myself that it was the right decision. Once they saw how incredible the Neuralink device was, I thought, they would want one too. *** I’m jolted back to reality as the car veers slightly left, and I manually yank the wheel to correct it. Perhaps my implant glitched for a second… *** Everything changed after I had my Neuralink implanted. I was the only person in my family who had one, although a couple of friends did. At first, I felt invincible. The phenomenal speed with which I was able to come up with previously challenging diagnoses was thrilling. I was able to process enormous amounts of data and draw connections that I had never been able to before. It was addictive to feel that I was working at my full potential, using my newfound ‘superpower’ to save more lives than ever. About a month in, my thoughts began racing uncontrollably, until I felt like I was drowning in a flood of information. Sometimes, the input was so overwhelming that my head pounded and I struggled to breathe. My thoughts didn’t even feel like mine anymore. Family and friends started to grow more and more distant from me. This device was stuck inside my brain like superglue, and sometimes I just wanted to dig it right out of my skull. When I asked the doctor about removing it, he looked at me and smirked, “Why on earth would you want to get rid of such a game-changing device? Neuralink’s the new normal, honey. Get used to it.” *** A honk startles me as a car zooms past, nearly colliding with mine. I turn into a quieter street to regain my composure. But then – suddenly – thoughts of accelerating the car bombard my mind – so loud that I can barely hear myself think. The speedometer rises from 60 to 80 to 100 km an hour. I desperately try to disconnect my Neuralink from the car, to manually override the system – anything that will slow the car down. I start pushing random buttons hoping that I will get some kind of response. A red light flashes on my dashboard. ERROR. SIGNAL DISRUPTED BY UNKNOWN USER. I look up and meet the panicked eyes of a woman pushing a man in a wheelchair. Noah, April 7th 2044 The sun makes its final, glorious descent below the horizon, painting a beautiful array of pinks and oranges across the sky. I take a deep breath as Sophia, my support worker, pushes me along the road. We’re on our way to the grocery store, just in time for the end of day specials, which are all I can afford right now. Since my accident, I’ve tried my best to appreciate what I have, but it isn’t easy. Some days, I’m filled with rage as I struggle to complete daily tasks that I did on autopilot before my accident – back when I wasn’t confined to a wheelchair. It’s been hard to come to terms with this new body that I’m stuck with, and all the ways it seems to betray me. I miss the simple things – going to the grocery store by myself or playing board games with friends. But most of all, I miss working as an architect. I loved seeing my clients’ faces light up as they imagined the memories they would make in the new homes I had designed. This sense of satisfaction was taken from me the moment I was paralysed from the neck down. It’s why I’m so desperate to get a Neuralink implant. I would get one right this second if they weren’t so expensive. The Neuralink device isn’t covered by my insurance because the government claims that it wouldn’t be ‘cost effective’. While it won’t restore movement in my arms and legs, this implant would give me some precious freedom back. Maybe if I keep saving and take out a loan, I’ll have just enough to cover it and get my life back … *** “God, these Tesla drivers think they own the road!” I chuckle at Sophia, as a Tesla races towards the crossing in this 40km zone. As we begin to cross the road, I realise that the Tesla is showing no signs of slowing down. The car swerves violently, hurtling towards us without mercy. Sophia’s face pales as she frantically tries to push me out of the road. I squeeze my eyes shut, bracing for impact. Bibliography: Cernat, M., Borțun, D., & Matei, C. (2022, April). Human-Computer Interaction: Ethical Perspectives on Technology and Its (Mis) uses. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (pp. 338-349). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39386-0_16 Fridman, Lex. (Host). (2024, August 3rd). Elon Musk: Neuralink and the Future of Humanity (No 438). [Audio podcast episode]. In Lex Fridman Podcast. https://lexfridman.com/elon-musk-and-neuralink-team/ Jawad, A. J. (2021). Engineering ethics of neuralink brain computer interfaces devices. Perspective , 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.23880/abca-16000160 Oravec, B. Neurotechnology, Ethical Privacy, and Information Technology. Knighted , 36. https://www.mga.edu/arts-letters/docs/knighted-journal/Issue-6.pdf#page=37 Youssef, N. O. A., Guia, V., Walczysko, F., Suriyasuphapong, S., & Moslemi, C. (2020). Ethical concerns and consequences of Neuralink. Natural Science. https://rucforsk.ruc.dk/ws/files/75503337/NIB3_Group1_Neuralink.pdf Previous article Next article apex back to

< Back to Issue 10 Terrible Lizards and their Terrible Reconstructions by Kaya Czerwinska 2 June 2026 Illustrated by Esme MacGillivray Edited by Vicenta Wheatley This comes as a surprise to nobody, but it isn't the easiest task in the world to figure out an extinct creature’s appearance, habitat and behaviour from a few bones. Our understanding of animals is constantly evolving with new discoveries and technology, much like the species themselves. Yet, no matter how cunning we are to glean all kinds of fascinating history about those who lived so long before us, we humans can't always get it right. Let’s take a walk down memory lane to look at some of history’s more eccentric paleontological reconstructions! Stegosaurus Figure 1 W.H. Ballou’s Vision of a Flying Stegosaurus. Note. Image reproduced from (3). Stegosaurus is one of the more well-known dinosaurs and can be easily spotted among a child’s plastic figurine set. When presented with something Stegosaurus -shaped, one is left with very little doubt in their mind that it is, indeed, a Stegosaurus . There’s no modern animal quite like it. However, this distinctness is exactly what gave scientists trouble when they first discovered it. More specifically, why did it have plates on its body, and where were they supposed to go? Othniel Charles Marsh, the paleontologist who discovered it, initially believed that the plates sat flat over its back like armour or roof tiles (1). This is where its name, which translates to ‘roofed lizard’, came from. The confusion did not end after realising the plates were supposed to stand upright, though. Imaginations ran wild as their function remained unclear. One 1912 edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer claimed that they were used for defence against predators, calling Stegosaurus the ‘most grotesque animal’ and ‘a freak of nature’ (2). Another article, written by William Hosea Ballou, was published in the Ogden Standard-Examiner in 1920, suggesting that it used its plates like wings for gliding or flight (3). This was considered absurd even for the time, but was certainly charming to picture. To this day, what our spiky friends used their plates for is up for debate. Some of the more recent hypotheses are that they assisted with regulating temperature or colourful displays, which have been supported by the discovery of channels inside the plates that might have held blood vessels (4). However, even once we conclusively figure out what their true function was, flying Stegosaurus will remain a whimsical and creative interpretation. Elasmosaurus Figure 2 Cope’s Initial Reconstruction of Elasmosaurus with its Head on the Wrong End. Note. Image reproduced from (5). Sometimes, one can get so distracted by workplace drama that they can’t make head nor tail of the work they’re supposed to be doing - literally. This was the case for Edward Drinker Cope, a rival of Othniel Charles Marsh (who described Stegosaurus ). Both paleontologists competed to discover more new species, often criticising and even sabotaging each other’s work. In 1869, Cope attempted to describe a new marine creature called Elasmosaurus , which had four flippers and a long neck, almost like the Loch Ness monster (5). Unfortunately, he made one crucial error. In his reconstruction, he had mistakenly attached the head to the tail end instead of the neck. While it was quickly pointed out and fixed, Cope’s blunder was much to the amusement of Marsh, who frequently mentioned it in order to call Cope a ‘careless’ scientist who rushed his work (6). People tend to use this moment as an example of the many insults and arguments Marsh and Cope threw at each other during their lifelong feud. However, an animal like Elasmosaurus had not been seen before, and it’s very common for lizards to have long tails. Deciding that the longer end must be the tail wouldn’t have been a completely unreasonable guess at the time. At the end of the day, it’s important to remember that paleontologists during their time were working from much less information than we have today. Hallucigenia Figure 3. Initial Reconstruction of Hallucigenia Walking Using Spines. Note. Image reproduced from (7). Hallucigenia ’s name means ‘hallucination’ or ‘dream producer’, which is a good indicator of the experience scientists had while attempting to figure this creature out. It lived around 505 million years ago during the Cambrian era, a time when evolution was being particularly experimental (7). All kinds of strange, worm-like creatures were wandering the ocean floor, and many of them were very small. This certainly doesn’t help scientists trying to interpret the vague and cryptic shapes these animals can create when they become fossils. The first proposed idea about Hallucigenia was that it moved on a set of stiff, straight legs, with tentacles coming out of its back (8). If that wasn’t confusing enough, there was also a mysterious stain near one end of the initial fossil’s body, prompting debate about which side was the head. The mystery was finally solved when a second specimen was discovered, sitting in the rock at a different angle that allowed its legs to be seen more clearly. The ‘legs’ were actually spines on its back, and its real legs were the ‘tentacles’ (9). Scientists had been looking at it upside-down the whole time. While we finally know roughly what it looked like, Hallucigenia continues to be somewhat of an enigma to this day, with many things left to figure out about its place in the tree of life and its relatedness to other species. Oviraptor Figure 4. Oviraptor Embryo from Flaming Cliffs. Note. Image reproduced from (12). As a fossilised animal’s behaviour can’t be observed in action, scientists often rely on context clues from the environment that the fossil was found in. This was the case for a dinosaur discovered on top of a nest of fossilised eggs in 1924. The new species was named Oviraptor , meaning ‘egg thief’, in reference to the belief that it preyed on the eggs of another dinosaur called Protoceratops (10). However, some later analyses revealed that Oviraptor didn’t have teeth well-suited for eating eggs, and probably didn’t include them in its diet (11). It was later discovered that the eggs from the original specimen contained not Protoceratops , but baby Oviraptor embryos - Oviraptor had been framed for eating its own children (12). While the mistake has been rectified for several decades by now, it is still food for thought that humanity’s first instinct was to assume this dinosaur was hunting the eggs and not incubating them. There has, first through our knowledge gaps and later through pop culture portrayals, persisted an idea of dinosaurs as nothing more than scaly, destructive beasts. Dinosaurs are unintelligent and run purely on impulse. Dinosaurs kill on sight. Dinosaurs would never take care of their children. Yet, they did. Humans are not the only animals capable of caring or compassionate acts, and Oviraptor is a reminder to be careful of anthropocentrism. Woolly Rhinoceros Figure 5. Reconstruction of the ‘Unicorn’ by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Note. Image reproduced from (13). Almost the holy grail of paleontological blunders is the Magdeburg Unicorn. Not knowing how to put together a Woolly Rhinoceros skeleton is understandable, but this specific reconstruction of one has many notable issues, including a lack of back legs and a completely missing torso. The glaring inaccuracies can be attributed to the fact that the fossil was discovered and reconstructed in the 1600s, long before any other examples in this article (13). Paleontology as a discipline was still in its infancy, and beliefs in creatures such as unicorns were still common. Thus, when a number of woolly rhinoceros and woolly mammoth bones were discovered in a cave, inexperience and superstition combined to manifest them into a brand new creature. The origin of the horn is somewhat dubious but was most likely a narwhal tusk (14). As paleontology advanced, the unicorn’s status as a plausible reconstruction gradually slipped away. However, on a bad day, it’s still helpful to picture a living Magdeburg Unicorn frolicking through fields in all its bizarre glory. Perhaps if this article had been written a few years from now, there would be a few new entries about animals that we think we understand well today. The only constant truth in science is that it never stops moving forward. With every step, we leave behind a piece of what we thought the truth was, and it’s only fair to show some appreciation for those who laid the path. However, two things can be true at once. We can respect the hard work of each scientist in history who has made attempts to improve humanity’s understanding of the world around us. And we can also laugh at the fact that in hindsight, many of those attempts turned out to be spectacularly strange. References Marsh OC. A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the Rocky Mountains. Zenodo [Internet]. 1877 Dec 1; Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/1450038#.YoPJRIjMLrc The Ogden standard-examiner. (Ogden, UT), Aug. 15 1920. https://www.loc.gov/item/sn85058393/1920-08-15/ed-1/ . "Was Most Grotesque Animal" Newspapers.com . The Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 June 1912. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-cincinnati-enquirer-was-most-grotesq/113116207/ . Farlow JO, Hayashi S, Tattersall GJ. Internal vascularity of the dermal plates of Stegosaurus (Ornithischia, Thyreophora). Swiss Journal of Geosciences. 2010 Aug 24;103(2):173–85. Cope ED. The Fossil Reptiles of New Jersey (Continued). The American Naturalist. 1869 Apr 1;3(2):84–91. Davidson JP. Bonehead mistakes: The background in scientific literature and illustrations for Edward Drinker Cope’s first restoration of Elasmosaurus platyurus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 2002 Oct;152(1):215–40. Conway Morris S. A new metazoan from the Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Palaeontology. 1977;20(3):623–40. Stephen Jay Gould. Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 1989. Ramsköld L, Xianguang H. New early Cambrian animal and onychophoran affinities of enigmatic metazoans. Nature. 1991 May;351(6323):225–8. Henry Fairfield Osborn. Three new Theropoda, Protoceratops zone, central Mongolia. American Museum Novitates. 1924 Jan 1;144:1–12. Barsbold, R. "Khishchnye dinosavry mela Mongoliy" [Carnivorous Dinosaur of the Cretaceous of Mongolia]. Transactions of the Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition . 1983 19: 5–119. Norell MA, Clark JM, Demberelyin D, Rhinchen B, Chiappe LM, Davidson AR, et al. A Theropod Dinosaur Embryo and the Affinities of the Flaming Cliffs Dinosaur Eggs. Science. 1994 Nov 4;266(5186):779–82. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Protogaea. University of Chicago Press; 2008. Kolfschoten, Thijs. THE WOOLLY RHINOCEROS FROM SEWECKENBERGE NEAR QUEDLINBURG (GERMANY). 157. 39-48. doi:10.11588/propylaeum.868.c11306. Previous article back to Fact & Fiction Next article

< Back to Issue 9 It’s Dangerous to Go Alone by Julia Lockerd 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Jason Chien Edited by Luci Ackland It’s safe to say that as a species, we have done a fair bit of thinking over the years. From microbes to mammals, to mapping the stars, we have always searched for ways to make meaning of the world and its many mysteries. Every day, the amount of knowledge possessed grows, building on the ideas we learn from each other. But what is knowledge without someone to know it? And how can we build a reliable foundation upon which to amass this knowledge? Many modern philosophers take a ‘what’s mine is mine’ approach to epistemology – the development of knowledge – with ideas like trust and collaboration altogether excluded from the recipe for ‘good science’ (1). Philosopher John Locke suggests that an ‘autonomous knower’ (2) – that’s you! – should only accept input from someone existing outside the self if she already possesses empirical evidence confirming that input is true (3). That is to say, don’t believe anything you read online, or in a book, or hear from your friend, or your professor alone. Basically, don’t believe the sky is blue unless you can look outside and see it for yourself. This seems like a hard way to live and makes it nearly impossible to make any headway on scientific advancement. If there is truly no way to build on previous knowledge, how do we measure anything at all? When considering scientific disciplines, the (presumably brooding) ‘autonomous knower’ must give up her lone wolf life and finally make some friends. This is not only for her emotional benefit, but also because science simply cannot occur without it. Epstein (2006) argues that the three main drivers of scientific collaboration are as follows: 1. The topic demands it. This applies to fields such as cognitive psychology, where the topic is an amalgam of different specialisations. 2. To gain a new perspective. Researchers interviewed by Epstein highlighted how collaboration helps them gain new approaches and techniques. 3. To provide additional knowledge. Although it’s all well and good to assert you should only believe what you can prove yourself (looking at you, Locke), collaboration is crucial to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ every time you want to learn something new (4). This last reason, by its very nature, proves that, despite my best efforts, no one person can possess the whole of human understanding by herself. Thus, the ‘many-headed knower’ makes her appearance on stage. This version of the knower exists as an alternative to Locke’s Autonomous Knower, where multiple individuals can share fragments of a greater epistemic idea. Without it, whole scientific disciplines can be reasoned away as no single person possesses the evidence to prove the scientific idea exists (2). For example, many medical devices could not be realised without input from both clinicians and engineers. If knowledge cannot be shared between these two groups, MedTech might cease to exist at all. With the multiheaded knower by your side, you can now solve scientific conundrums with the power of friendship (or, begrudging teamwork if it’s 11.59pm and you’re still working on that group project due at 12.00am). To fully grasp how systems of collaboration function, we need to investigate the interpersonal relationships that make up the heads of the knower. Generally, these relationships are of two kinds: Moral and Epistemic trust. Returning to our old friend, the multi-headed knower, epistemic trust allows multiple heads to exist, while moral trust in social bonds between researchers keeps her many heads attached. Epistemic trust involves the acceptance of knowledge provided by an external source as true. While trustworthiness often evokes a sense of superior moral value, epistemic trust has far more to do with the perceived competency of the individual providing information. Wagenknecht calls these relationships ‘Epistemic Dependence’ (5). The word dependence here is interesting, as it reveals a certain vulnerability in the relationship between researchers. Wagenknecht likens it to someone asking for directions in a foreign city. Simply, it is a blind trust that one's partner knows the way to go and is capable of leading them there. But where does this trust come from? If trust were truly blind, I could justify my lab results with a simple ‘Trust me bro,’ and my supervisor would go ‘Fantastic. Nobel prize for you.’ Unfortunately, this isn’t how it works, and my career trajectory will (probably) look a little more complicated. It is instead proposed that there are ‘shades of trust and distrust’ that can be influenced by external modifiers, such as accurate conduct of experiments, analysis of results, and epistemic authority. In this model, trust is a dynamic concept that builds or deteriorates between trustees over a chain of interactions (5). If a series of interactions is positive and trust is progressively built up, at some point, an asymptotic limit of trust will be reached. However, the level of epistemic trust between any two researchers is high but never complete, even when there is no reason to doubt the other's testimony. This is good news for Locke, as there still might be a space in which his autonomous knower can exist in happy isolation. Moral trust, the far less popular younger brother of Epistemic trust, is the scrappy underdog in the world of scientific relationships. It is argued that morality shouldn’t even get a seat at the big kids' table, as there is no place for it in scientific collaboration (2). This raises the ever-devious question: why not lie? A little fudge of the numbers could make you the next Elizabeth Holmes, minus the jail time and general disgrace (6). To find an answer, I turn to T.M. Scanlon’s ‘What We Owe Each Other’ (7). Specifically, in chapter five, he discusses the ever-sexy ‘structure of moral contractualism’. Scanlon explores a set of moral requirements that must be accepted or rejected based on the concern we hold for another's well-being, their own personal values, and perspective. Simply, academic falsification is rare because one researcher owes it to another to give a truthful testimony. Returning to the analogy of being lost in a foreign city, what keeps the locals from sending a tourist in the wrong direction out of laziness or fun? I argue that it is the acceptance of a moral principle out of concern for another person's well-being. Immanuel Kant believed lying was always wrong, in every situation (a stance I’m sure made him suuuuuuuuper fun to be around) (8). If this is true, the structure of scientific collaboration must surely crumble in the absence of moral trust (9). Interestingly, Scanlon discusses the place of ‘impersonal values’ in the development of moral code. This relates to reasons for adherence to a moral code that does not pertain to the well-being or status of any one individual. He uses the preservation of the Grand Canyon as an example. We do not deface the Grand Canyon because it would harm any particular group of people, and we cannot argue that this principle is 'what we owe to others', as the canyon doesn't have any personal feelings (that we know of). Instead, only the value we have tied to the land itself stops us from turning it into the biggest lazy river in the world (7). In the context of research, not only do we owe it to each other to adhere to truthfulness, but we also owe it to science as a concept. Essentially, if you’re not doing science with a pure and truthful heart, you’re not doing science at all. Someone needs to tell Dr. Evil about this. As scientific communities have relied more and more on each other to produce collaborative results, science as a whole has become somewhat of a team sport. I argue that while epistemic and moral are two different forms of trust – or even the same form of trust applied to different issues – they both contribute to the social basis of scientific collaboration. Trust in itself is a purely social concept; just as knowledge cannot exist without a 'knower', trust cannot exist without two people, between whom that trust can exist. Therefore, whether you subscribe to the idea that moral trust has any place in scientific collaboration, it is indisputable that there is a social level to any interaction between researchers. This is to say nothing about the more 'frivolous' aspects of collaboration in which personal opinions, egos, and attitudes have been anecdotally proven to affect the quality of collaborative work. Science, at its core, is about understanding. It makes sense that we can’t even get off the ground if we don't start by understanding each other. References 1. J. Locke. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. www.gutenberg.org , 1689. Available: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-h/10615-h.htm 2. J. Hardwig. The Role of Trust in Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy . 1991;88(12):693. doi: 10.2307/2027007 3. R. W. Grant. John Locke on Custom’s Power and Reason’s Authority. The Review of Politics. 2012;74(4) 607–629.doi: 10.2307/23355688. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23355688 4. S. Epstein. Making Interdisciplinary Collaboration Work. Available: https://www.cs.hunter.cuny.edu/~epstein/papers/collaboration.pdf . [Accessed: Mar. 29, 2024] 5. S. Wagenknecht. Facing the Incompleteness of Epistemic Trust: Managing Dependence in Scientific Practice. Social Epistemology . 2014;29(2):160–184. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2013.794872 6. E. Fricker. Testimony and Epistemic Autonomy. The Epistemology of Testimony . 2006:225–245. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276011.003.0011 7. T. M. Scanlon. What We Owe to Each Other. 1998. Available: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/file/feeds/PDF/9780674248953_sample.pdf 8. T. L. Carson. Kant and the Absolute Prohibition against Lying. Lying and Deception . 2010:67–87. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577415.003.0004 9. Immanuel Kant. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? by Immanuel Kant 1784. Marxists.org , 1798. Available: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/enlightenment.htm Previous article Next article Entwined back to

< Back to Issue 9 Rewilding Our Cities with Dr Kylie Soanes by Ciara Dahl 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Jess Walton Edited by Arwen Nguyen-Ngo When you think of nature, I bet the last things that come to mind are skyscrapers, freeways and footpaths. Welcome to the hidden world of urban ecology! I recently spoke to urban ecologist and prolific science communicator Dr Kylie Soanes about the challenges of conserving wildlife in urban environments, and what drives her to protect nature in our cities. Dr Kylie Soanes is determined to protect wildlife in our urban environments. (1) A research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Soanes describes herself as “your friendly neighbourhood wildlife scientist” on a mission to “save nature in cities and towns.” Her projects range from designing rope bridges to help endangered possums cross busy roads, to installing floating wetlands that bring biodiversity back to our urban waterways. Cities are a bustling weave of people and places, but where does nature belong in all of that chaos? That’s the question Soanes has dedicated much of her career to exploring. Like many of us, she grew up in a classic urban environment, longing to get into the wild. Her passion for learning about the natural world eventually grew into a career studying ecology and conservation at university. There is a common assumption that nature doesn't belong in cities. However, Soanes emphasises that cities are a “perfect place for people to connect with nature; there’s heaps of amazing biodiversity here”, adding that “it doesn't always have to look like the pristine natural conditions for it to be valuable”. She emphasises that communicating this message is the "first real step" in shifting mindsets. Soanes notes that urban ecology is often more about working with people than with science, explaining that “there are still people in this space that need to use it." Urban ecologists must be skilled collaborators, working with communities and experts across disciplines – from architects and engineers, to social scientists and artists – to reach solutions that balance the needs of nature and people. But what happens when communities don't feel seen by urban plans? A recent effort to protect swamp wallaby habitat along the Merri Creek Trail by diverting pedestrian traffic was met with concern from the community about personal safety (2). Cases like these highlight the challenges urban ecologists face every day when trying to make space for nature in our cities. Soanes argues that it is critical for urban ecologists to discuss “social risks and social justice, to make sure that we're not changing cities in a way that makes it worse for people". Public outcries like these often stem from communities that are faced with “a decision that they think that they weren't involved in”. The biggest tool in an urban ecologist's belt is community consultation, "so that everybody is brought along on the journey and we can make the right call for everyone." Some of Soanes’ favourite work is not just about protecting nature in cities, but putting it back. She speaks about creating new habitats in urban spaces, such as floating wetlands that transform bleak industrial wastelands into thriving ecosystems, or even rooftop gardens that reclaim space for nature. One of the most exciting areas of urban ecology includes restoring locally extinct species. Soanes cites the example of the endangered Key’s Matchstick Grasshopper, which was reintroduced to Royal Park in 2022 to restore the local population and support a healthy ecosystem (3). Often, such projects are overlooked in urban areas. She explains how they are frequently “put in the too hard basket”; but there is now a shift in focus towards “physically reintroducing species once we know that all the things that they need are there". So, where can we find some of Melbourne’s most exciting urban ecology projects? You can spot the floating wetlands in various locations along the Yarra River (4), and native wildflower meadows planted on roadsides throughout the city (5). Ever spotted those wooden boxes on trees around Melbourne’s gardens? They’re not decorations – they’re artificial hollows providing safe places for wildlife to nest (6). Additionally, “lots of councils are really embracing water sensitive urban design" by installing "miniature wetlands that slow rainwater down and clean it up before it hits our stormwater system" (7). The City of Melbourne has installed floating wetlands in the Yarra River since 2022. (4) Soanes also emphasises how cultural values and knowledge can be woven into urban ecology projects. She points to the revitalised Moonee Ponds Creek as an example, noting “it has a calendar for the Wurundjeri seasons and a beautiful cultural trail.” Projects like these offer valuable opportunities for communities to connect not only with nature, but with culture. So, how can we make our own homes more wildlife-friendly? Soanes encourages asking, “What can I add to make living here easier for species other than me? ”. It could be as simple as planting a few more native plants in your garden. As the warmer months approach, placing birdbaths or shallow water trays outside can help wildlife keep cool, “especially as our cities become hotter and drier”. Outside of her work as a researcher, Soanes has a strong social media presence, using it as a platform to share her conservation messages with the wider public. She emphasises that science communication is "about making your messages and your science accessible not just to the broader public, but to the people making decisions". Dr Kylie Soanes platforms her conservation messages on social media. (8) Soanes argues that "showcasing and celebrating those stories of success" gives people "hope that they can make change in their area", while inspiring councils and urban land managers to apply similar solutions. She acknowledges that wildlife conservation can feel "very heavy” at times but stresses “it is important to show that there are all these options out there.” "There are so many other people that want the same things, or would like to see their neighbourhood become a little bit better for nature," she adds. "I think almost everybody cares about nature – it just doesn't always look like wearing khaki and carrying binoculars at all times." A big thank you to Dr Kylie Soanes for taking the time to speak with us and shed light on the fascinating world of urban ecology. To keep up with her work, follow her on Instagram @drkyliesoanes or explore her research and projects at kyliesoanes.com . References Soanes K. Dr Kylie Soanes [Internet]. Dr Kylie Soanes. [cited 2025 Oct 18]. Available from: https://kyliesoanes.com/ Paul M. A “balancing act” as council votes to fence dogs out of park, sparking safety concerns [Internet]. ABC News. 2025 Aug 21. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-21/merri-creek-dog-fence-swamp-wallaby-coburg-victoria/105675854 City of Melbourne. Melbourne jumps at the chance to bring back the grasshopper [Internet]. City of Melbourne. 2022 [cited 2025 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/media/melbourne-jumps-chance-bring-back-grasshopper Balance Enviro. Yarra River Floating Wetlands – Balance Enviro Solutions [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://balanceenviro.com.au/project/yarra-river-floating-wetlands/ City of Melbourne. Wildflower meadows and rare blooms boost biodiversity in Melbourne [Internet]. Vic.gov.au . 2024 [cited 2025 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/news/wildflower-meadows-and-rare-blooms-boost-biodiversity-melbourne#meadows Arthur Rylah Institute. Use of nest boxes in Victoria [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.ari.vic.gov.au/research/people-and-nature/use-of-nest-boxes-in-victoria Melbourne Water. Constructed wetlands | Melbourne Water [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.melbournewater.com.au/building-and-works/stormwater-management/options-treating-stormwater/constructed-wetlands Soanes K. Dr Kylie Soanes [Instagram page]. Instagram. [cited 2025 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.instagram.com/drkyliesoanes/?hl=en Previous article Next article Entwined back to

< Back to Issue 6 Proprioception: Our Invisible Sixth Sense by Ingrid Sefton 28 May 2024 Edited by Subham Priya Illustrated by Jessica Walton What might constitute a sixth sense? Perhaps, it involves possessing a second sight or superhuman abilities. A classic example of this would be Spider-Man and his ‘spidey-sense’ — an instinctual warning system that alerts him to imminent danger. Enhancing his reflexes and agility, his sixth sense enables him to evade threats with precision. Turns out Spider-Man is not the sole bearer of a ‘spidey sense’. While we may not be scaling walls anytime soon, we too possess a special sense that unconsciously guides our movements. It might sound peculiar, but knowing your arm is indeed your own arm involves a unique form of sensory processing. Considered by neuroscientists as our own ‘sixth sense’, proprioception is our own way of helping the brain to understand the position of our body and limbs in space (Sherrington, 1907). Consider a typical scenario: your first sip of coffee in the morning. Eyes shut, you savour your latte before the day begins. Such a simple act, yet impossible without proprioception. With closed eyes, how do you know where your mouth is? How do you gauge the position of your arm to ensure the coffee cup reaches your lips? Proprioception seamlessly transmits information about muscle tension, joint position, and force to the brain, making drinking your coffee an automatic and coordinated process. Proprioception operates on principles akin to those guiding our other senses. Specialised cells, known as receptors, are found in each sensory organ and receive information from the environment. Receptors in your eyes capture visual information, while those in your ears detect auditory stimuli. This sensory information is transduced through signals to the central nervous system – through the spinal cord and to the brain – where it’s integrated and processed to determine an appropriate response. Analogously, proprioceptive information is mediated by proprioceptors, a unique type of receptors located in your muscles and joints (Proske & Gandevia, 2012). Unlike our other senses, proprioception does not rely on input from the external environment. Rather, it provides feedback to the brain about what the body itself is doing. Changes in muscle tension and the position of our joints are relayed to the brain, ensuring awareness of the body’s whereabouts at any given moment. One implication of this ‘internal’ feedback loop is that proprioception never turns ‘off’. When you cover your ears, you experience silence. If you hold your nose, you can block out the smell. Yet even when still, in motion, or unconscious, your brain continuously receives proprioceptive input. Imagine this in the context of going to bed each night. What exactly prevents you from falling out of bed, once asleep? While most senses are subdued when sleeping, proprioception remains active, informing the brain about the slightest changes in the position of the body. This ensures a perpetual awareness of our body in space – and luckily for us, stops us from rolling out of bed (Proske & Gandevia, 2012). It can be hard to appreciate what our proprioceptive system allows us to do, given its unconscious nature and integration with our other senses. Rare neurological disorders affecting proprioception highlight just how critical this sense is in our daily lives. The case of Ian Waterman – now known as ‘the man who lost his body – offers profound insights into the significance of proprioception (McNeill et al., 2009). Following a fever in 1971 at age 19, a subsequent auto-immune reaction destroyed all his sensory neurons from the neck down–a condition termed ‘neuronopathy’. Despite retaining his intact motor functions, Waterman lost all proprioceptive abilities, rendering him unaware of his body's position in space. Although the viral infection’s initial effect was that of immobility, this loss was not due to paralysis. Rather, it was Waterman’s lack of control over his body that inhibited his ability to move. Sitting, walking, and manipulating objects became impossible tasks as a result of the absence of any proprioceptive feedback from the body. Remarkably, Waterman has been able to teach himself precise strategies to walk and function with a degree of normality (Swain, 2017). Yet, all movement requires concerted planning and relies entirely on vision to compensate for the unconscious proprioceptive processing. In the absence of any light, Waterman is unable to see his limbs, thus restricting his ability to move. An understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying proprioception remains somewhat of a mystery compared to that of our other senses. However, recent genetic advancements are paving the way for the development of novel therapies aimed at neurological and musculoskeletal disorders (Woo et al., 2015). A study involving two young patients with unique neurological disorders affecting their body awareness revealed a mutation in their PIEZO2 gene (Chesler et al., 2016). Both individuals experienced significant challenges with balance and movement, coupled with progressive scoliosis and deformities in the hips, fingers, and feet. The PIEZO2 gene typically encodes a type of mechanosensitive protein in cells, r esponsible for generating electrical signals in response to alterations in cell shape (Coste et al., 2010). Mutations to this gene prevent signal generation and render the neurons incapable of detecting limb or body movement. These findings firmly establish PIEZO2 as a critical gene for facilitating proprioception in humans, a sense that is crucial for bodily awareness. PIEZO2 mutations have also been implicated in genetic musculoskeletal disorders (Coste et al., 2010). Joint problems and scoliosis experienced by the patients in a study suggest that proprioception may also indirectly guide skeletal development. These insights into the role of the PIEZO2 gene in proprioception and musculoskeletal development open up promising avenues for understanding and treating neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. It’s more than fitting to regard proprioception as our sixth sense. The capacity of our nervous system to seamlessly process vast amounts of information from our joints and muscles, all without any conscious effort on our part, is truly remarkable. So, the next time you have that eyes-shut first sip of coffee, give yourself a pat on the back. With your sixth sense at play, you’re clearly a superhero! References Chesler, A. T., Szczot, M., Bharucha-Goebel, D., Čeko, M., Donkervoort, S., Laubacher, C., Hayes, L. H., Alter, K., Zampieri, C., Stanley, C., Innes, A. M., Mah, J. K., Grosmann, C. M., Bradley, N., Nguyen, D., Foley, A. R., Le Pichon, C. E., & Bönnemann, C. G. (2016). The Role of PIEZO2 in Human Mechanosensation. N Engl J Med , 375 (14), 1355-1364. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602812 Coste, B., Mathur, J., Schmidt, M., Earley, T. J., Ranade, S., Petrus, M. J., Dubin, A. E., & Patapoutian, A. (2010). Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science , 330 (6000), 55-60. McNeill, D., Quaeghebeur, L., & Duncan, S. (2009). IW - “The Man Who Lost His Body”. In (pp. 519-543). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_27 Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The Proprioceptive Senses: Their Roles in Signaling Body Shape, Body Position and Movement, and Muscle Force. Physiological Reviews , 92 (4), 1651-1697. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00048.2011 Sherrington, C. S. (1907). On the proprio-ceptive system, especially in its reflex aspect. Brain , 29 (4), 467-482. Swain, K. (2017). The phenomenology of touch. The Lancet Neurology , 16 (2), 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30389-1 Woo, S. H., Lukacs, V., de Nooij, J. C., Zaytseva, D., Criddle, C. R., Francisco, A., Jessell, T. M., Wilkinson, K. A., & Patapoutian, A. (2015). Piezo2 is the principal mechanotransduction channel for proprioception. Nature Neuroscience , 18 (12), 1756-1762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4162 Previous article Next article Elemental back to

Curious what an OmniSci Editor-in-Chief actually does? We spoke to Rachel about drawing anatomy, interviewing a med student hero, and helping build the the science communication universe! Rachel is a writer and Editor-in-Chief at OmniSci, now in her first year of the Doctor of Medicine. For Issue 4: Mirage, she is writing an interview with science communicator, Dr Karen Freilich. Meet OmniSci Writer and Committee Member Rachel Ko Rachel is a writer and Editor-in-Chief at OmniSci, now in her first year of the Doctor of Medicine. For Issue 4: Mirage, she is writing an interview with science communicator, Dr Karen Freilich. interviewed by Caitlin Kane What are you studying? I am currently studying a Doctor of Medicine and I’m in my first year. Before that, I was studying a Bachelor of Biomed. What first got you interested in science? Exposure through education, stuff I’d studied in school. It sparked interests outside of school and I realised it was something that I wanted to pursue as a career. Something that really reinforced my love for science was doing a major in human structure and function, so anatomy. I really enjoyed that I could weave it in with my other passions in things like art and drawing and painting. I was able to look at science in a way that was really the artsy side of science. It's something I’ve tried to pursue with OmniSci as well. Do you have any advice for younger students? Don’t be afraid of trying all areas of science. Because I loved a specific area of science so much, I wanted to make sure that was what reeled me in as compared to other things. I tried a bunch of research projects, some of them I didn’t really love and I had to stick it out to the end, but then I could tick that off my list as having done that, and never have to do it again. But then I did another project which was 3D modelling a bone. It was just me sitting there for hours with a pen, drawing the bone in 3D space, which was very much up my alley. Don’t be afraid of trying everything, even if it feels like a waste of time in the moment. It isn't, it’s the process of filtering out and finding out what you love. And I’m still in that process. I have no idea what kind of medicine I want to go into, but I’m going by process of elimination and finding where I fit in the realm of science in that way. How did you get involved with OmniSci? Like I said, I like the artsy side of science. I actually sought out a few non-science related magazines at uni. I’ve always been into journalism and I love writing as well, so it made sense for me to look into that in my undergrad years. OmniSci emerged during those undergrad years and I thought, “Perfect!” I was a columnist first and I started doing some illustrations as well. Then I dropped my role at Farrago completely just to concentrate on this because I found it was a really nice intersection of what I love to do. My column was about vestigial features, like useless body parts, which I thought would be a fun, light column–I just wanted something cute and fun. So I started that, and now… I’m in the committee. What is your role at OmniSci? I am an Editor-in-Chief at the moment, and I have also written one of the pieces for Issue 4, purely because of my love for writing and contributing. I might step in as an illustrator at some point… I’m hoping in this break I can sit down and draw a little more than I used to. As Editors-in-Chief, we work with the committee to coordinate the things being published and try to envision what role OmniSci plays within the science communication universe. And whilst figuring out what we’re publishing and putting out to the world, we’re also trying to include the rest of the student community. We also have social events so that we can share our love for…whether it’s science or art or writing… any of the parts that OmniSci encompasses. We're there to keep everything chugging along!. What is your favourite thing about contributing at OmniSci so far? The people that you meet along the way. I do eventually want to pursue science communication myself, alongside medicine. I don’t know what that will look like, but I know that the people who will be involved in that space are the people you meet at the moment. Even with the committee, chatting about things and discussing interests has been super enlightening. When you expand that to the rest of the OmniSci community, I think it’s super super rewarding. Also seeing something tangible come out of it all… I just love seeing the magazine come together. When we printed it—though not ideal for the environment for every issue—to have the paper magazine in our hands from last year was super rewarding to see. Can you give us a sneak peak of what you're working on this issue? Well as Editor-in-Chief, the whole issue is kind of our collective baby! Personally I interviewed Dr Karen Freilich, a GP specialising in sexual health and working in education as well. I was lucky enough to have her as one of my sexual health elective tutors. She also started a podcast when she was in medical school called Humerus Hacks. It is basically super famous within the med student community. It sounds like such a simple thing, but just to hear her and the friend she started the podcast with talk things through and make things entertaining… it was such a fresh way of getting the information out. It’s kind of what we do at OmniSci: make science more accessible to people who might feel intimidated by those bigger, wider topics that they might never have ventured into. And the whole point of a magazine is to get information out to more people, and to spark interest, and show people that these things exist. As a med student, I kind of came across it as naturally as you could have. And as she was my tutor, I thought it was such an important opportunity to talk to her about why she did it and where she sees science communication going. What do you like doing in your spare time (when you're not contributing at OmniSci)? Well, there’s the anatomical art. I haven’t had a lot of time to do that… and I’ve been really wanting to try and incorporate it into my study but I spend a lot of time on one painting so it wouldn’t have been time efficient. But my plan for this break is to go to a bar, get myself a drink and just paint on my own… relax in that way. Otherwise, I play the violin, something I like to destress. It’s actually been a surprisingly big part of my life in med because there's a medical student orchestra. The rehearsals are quite long but it’s actually quite worth it to be sitting there not thinking about medicine. And yeah, just catching up with friends, going cafe hopping, bar hopping, that’s what I like to spend time doing. Which chemical element would you name your firstborn child (or pet) after? Let me pull up a visual aid. I actually don’t mind chemistry, but after year twelve I’ve kind of put a line between myself and it. Have you seen that trend online where people are pulling up words that would be really pretty baby names if they didn’t mean what they meant? Ooh, I’m going to go with Livermorium, Liv for short. Element 160. There’s some good ones—you could go Rutherfordium, Ruth for short. Read Rachel's articles Silent Conversations: How Trees Talk to One Another Wiggling Ears Our Microbial Frenemies Hiccups The Evolution of Science Communication Law and Disorder: Medically Supervised Injection Centres “Blink and you’ll miss it”: A Third Eyelid? Mighty Microscopic Warriors!

The Greenhouse Unpacking the Latest IPCC Report - What Climate Science is Telling Us By Sonia Truong The most comprehensive climate science report to date, this sixth assessment report reveals the reality of climate change and stresses that we need to take action urgently. Edited by Jessica Nguy & Yen Sim Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Jess Nguyen On the 9th of August 2021, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its first instalment of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group I, Climate Change 2021 — The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. The IPCC is one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change and its reports provide an important scientific framework for governments to develop climate policies. With the collaborative effort of 234 leading climate scientists and more than 1,000 contributors, the latest IPCC report provides the most up-to-date information about the scientific basis of climate change and the effects of human activity on Earth’s systems. The report can be found online — it features a ‘Summary for Policymakers’ document exploring key findings across four topic areas as well as a comprehensive ‘Full Report’ which assesses and compiles peer-reviewed literature on climate science from across the globe. The report also features the IPCC WGI Interactive Atlas which explores observed and projected regional climate changes across different emissions and warming scenarios. Three key takeaways from the IPCC report are described below. #1: Human activity has contributed to climate change It in unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Headline statement from the IPCC’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’, AR6 2021 Advancements in attribution studies have allowed scientists to better simulate Earth’s responses to natural and anthropogenic factors and estimate the extent of human influence on observed climate trends. For the first time, the IPCC report has been able to state with a very high level of certainty that anthropogenic factors have been the main driver of increasing temperature extremes since the mid-19th century. Figure SPM.1 shows that simulated natural factors do not come close to explaining the observed increase in global surface temperature since the mid-19th century. Figure SPM.1: A powerful comparison of changes in global surface temperature since 1850 with and without human factors. This figure shows that the effects of natural climate drivers on global warming have been negligible compared to human influence on the climate. IPCC AR6, ‘Summary for Policymakers’ Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are higher than what they have been in the last two millennia and have been increasing at an unprecedented rate, mainly due to human activities in greenhouse gas combustion and deforestation. According to the report, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have caused warming of approximately 1.1°C above pre-industrial average. In fact, human activities have caused enough emissions for even greater warming, but this has been partially counteracted by the cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere. Some recent heat extremes would have been virtually impossible without the influence of human forcing factors. Siberia’s prolonged heatwaves of 2020, for example, would have occurred less than once every 80,000 years without human-induced climate change. Moreover, the onset of Siberia’s wildfire season saw record-high temperatures throughout 2020 and 2021 as well as the burning of over 16 million hectares of land. Even in today’s climate, such extreme weather events are unlikely, but have been predicted to become more frequent by the end of this century. #2: Every region will experience environmental changes due to climate change The IPCC report states that the “widespread, rapid and intensifying” effects of climate change will be experienced by every region in a multitude of ways. Since the release of the last IPCC report in 2018, the world has observed an increase in acute weather events such as widespread flooding, storms, drought, fire weather and heatwaves. These are predicted to increase in frequency and severity as a result of human-induced climate change. Many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming. They include increases in the frequency and intensity of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, and heavy precipitation, agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions, and proportion of intense tropical cyclones, as well as reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover and permafrost. B.2 from the IPCC’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’, AR6 2021 Several environmental changes due to climate change are already irreversible. Notably, global sea level rise and ocean acidification are set in long-term motion and will proceed at rates which will depend on future emissions. Glacial retreat is occurring synchronously across the world and glaciers will continue to melt for decades or centuries. All emission scenarios within the 21st century described in the report have revealed that global temperature changes will exceed a 1.5ºC increase, even in the lowest emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9). Thus, warming will reach a critical level regardless of actions that the world takes now. We can, however, prevent further temperature increases with deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions (especially carbon dioxide and methane). Figure SPM.5: All regions of the world (with one exception) will experience warming as a result of climate change, although not at an equal level. IPCC AR6, ‘Summary for policymakers’ Environmental changes at a 2ºC warming will be more pronounced and widespread, and extremes are likely to exceed critical tolerance thresholds in human health, ecological systems and agriculture. Australia, in particular, is vulnerable to experiencing scarce water resources in drought-prone areas and flooding and landslide events due to heavy rainfall events. Australia’s coastlines are also prone to erosion and flooding from rising sea levels and extreme meteorological events. The IPCC report examines evidence for climate ‘tipping points’ which, due to uncertainty about the Earth’s feedback systems, “cannot be ruled out” in climate projections. These tipping points are key thresholds that will lead to large-scale and irreversible damages to the Earth’s systems if breached. One of these tipping points is the loss of the Greenland ice sheet which is melting at an unprecedented rate. Surface melt of this major ice sheet involves a number of positive feedback loops which exacerbate the melting as the ice surface gets darker and less reflective of solar radiation. Scientists warn that, while highly unlikely, there is a possibility that we will reach a tipping point with current warming trends. #3: We need to make drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions immediately The Sixth Assessment Report tells us, with greater certainty than ever before, that human activities over the past six decades have caused global warming trends and affected climate extremes globally. These trends are likely to continue on a long-term scale. Most importantly, the report stresses that if we want any chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, we must urgently make strong, sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. The current global carbon budget to remain below 1.5ºC warming is estimated to be at an additional 500 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas. To remain within this budget, we need to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will only be achieved with meaningful climate action. If we can drastically reduce emissions now, we will still have a chance of averting the climate crisis. The two succeeding instalments of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report will cover the impacts of climate change and mitigation of climate change and are planned to be released in 2022. References: IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

Exciting technological leaps are being made in the futuristic field of visual prostheses. Australians suffering from visual impairment can be helped by emerging treatments including Bionic Eyes: a sight for sore eyes. This piece takes a look at the prevalent impairments and our ocular opportunities to treat them. Bionics: Seeing into the Future By Joshua Nicholls While the Bionic Eye might seem like a technology of the far future, exciting advancements are being made in the field of visual prostheses. This piece points a keen eye at emerging treatments for some of the most prominent diseases, along with their possible bionic treatments. Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Friday Kennedy Visual prostheses, colloquially known as bionic eyes, are a set of experimental devices designed to restore — or partially restore — vision to those with varying levels of blindness (1). While once viewed as “science fiction”, these technologies are becoming a reality for thousands of Australians with visual impairments. Since its inception in 1956 by the Australian inventor Graham Tassicker (2), the idea of restoring vision using electronics has undergone several developments, ranging from rudimentary cortical stimulation to modern advancements in state-of-the-art retinal implants. As of 2018, it was estimated that over 13 million Australians have some form of visual impairment. Of these 13 million, 411,000 have cataracts or the clouding of the lens; 244,00 have macular degeneration, which degrades fine detail vision; and 133,000 are either partially or entirely blind (3,4). The economic burden of blindness in Australia is substantial. In 2009, it was estimated that the total cost of vision loss per person aged 40 and over was $28,905 — a nationwide total of 16.6 billion AUD (5). Figure 1: Categorisation of Total Economic Cost of Vision Loss in 2009 (5) Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one condition for which visual prosthetics may be applicable. AMD refers to the irreversible loss of high-acuity, colour-sensitive cone cells in the centre field of vision. This structure of the retina is responsible for reading, recognising faces, driving, and other visual tasks that require sharp focal vision. In fact, you are using these cells to read this article right now. Its typical onset is later in life, affecting 12% of people aged 80 or over (6). As the leading chronic eye condition for elderly Australians (7), it accounts for 48% of all cases of blindness nationwide (8). According to AIHW4, there is also a higher prevalence amongst females than in males — between 4.9%–6.8% and 3.6–5.1%, respectively. Macular degeneration exists in two forms: dry and wet. Dry macular degeneration is caused by thinning of the macula; it is the most common form of the disease and progresses slowly over many years. Wet macular degeneration is a potentially more severe variation of the disease which is caused by the sudden development of leaky blood vessels around the macula (9). With no known cure — and most treatments being directed towards prevention and delaying progression — interventions relying on prosthetics may be the best hope for the restoration of lost eyesight (10). Graham Tassicker was the first to realise the potential utility of cortical stimulation in restoring sight to those with vision loss. In 1956, Tassicker developed a photosensitive selenium cell which, when placed behind the retina, resulted in phosphene visualisation — the phenomenon of seeing light without light actually entering the eye (2). This was the first evidence of non-cortical stimulation to elicit visual experience. It was in the 1990s that visual prostheses took a radical development; sophisticated retinal surgeries and the creation of biomaterials led to a surge of novel inventions, including cortical implant miniaturisation and artificial retinas — the latter of which is the most advanced to date. There is currently a state-of-the-art retinal bionic system that has recently undergone clinical trial research: the Argus II Retinal Stimulation System. The Argus is an epiretinal (above the retina) implant which has been designed by SecondSight; as of 2013, it was FDA approved for retinitis pigmentosa (RP) but has potential utility for dry AMD. It consists of a device that is implanted in the patient’s eye and an external processing unit worn by the user. The system consists of sixty electrodes, each of which is two-hundred-micrometres in diameter. Images that have been captured by a small camera on glasses are converted into electrical impulses to stimulate surviving ganglion cells on the retina. It is currently the most widely used retinal prosthetic system in the world, with more than 350 RP patients being treated to date. The cost of this device is 150,000 USD — a price that excludes surgery and post-operative training (11). Figure 2: The design of the Argus II (12) In 2015, a case study was performed by the Argus II study group on the impact the implant would have on restoring visual function to subjects who had complete blindness from RP. The results from this study were quite promising; it showed that of the 30 patients who received the Argus II system, all significantly performed better on a white square test than they did without the prosthesis. (None of the subjects scored any points with the device absent.) The Argus also showed reliability for 29 subjects, all of whom still had functioning devices after three years (13). In 2020, a clinical trial of this device for dry AMD was completed. The study, which consisted of five patients, assessed the safety and feasibility of the device. According to Mills et al. (14), no patients reported confusion when operating the Argus alongside their healthy peripheral vision. Adverse events occurred in two patients who experienced proliferative vitreoretinopathy — or tractional retinal detachment. However, due to recent events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the company declared that they would be performing “an orderly wind-down of the company’s operations”. SecondSight is now focusing on a new device: The Orion. This device is designed to stimulate the visual cortex of the brain — a return to the original conception of visual prosthetics. The Orion is planned to expand the pool of patients who are eligible for visual prosthetics. It will essentially bypass the requirement for healthy ganglion cells and a functioning optic nerve, which retinal prosthetics require. The only forms of blindness not encompassed by this technique are congenital forms of blindness or people who are ‘cortically blind’ from suffering damage to the visual cortex area V1. The Orion is modelled after the Argus II with its 60 cortical-stimulating electrodes receiving input from a camera on the user’s glasses. Under the Breakthrough Device Pathway, the FDA approved Orion for an early feasibility study. Six human subjects have been fitted with the device — one woman and five men between the ages of 29 and 57. Of these six, one had endophthalmitis, two had glaucoma, and three suffered trauma. After one year of wearing the device, four of the patients could accurately discern the location of a palm-sized white square on a computer screen, and five could locate its movement in space. The Orion has shown a good safety profile after 12 months of use, and follow-ups on its progress will occur for five years (15). Visual prostheses have a promising and bright future of development ahead of them. While it is still in its infancy, the results of ongoing clinical trials show promise for sight restoration. With multiple models and modes of intervention available, artificial vision is slowly becoming a reality for the visually impaired, but further developments in the field are still required. It would be promising to see advancements from mere two-dimensional grey-scale images to the rich, three-dimensional, and full-colour experience that we take for granted as normal vision. For now, two essential factors need to be improved for the full realisation of artificial vision: cost and electrode density. The Argus costs 150,000 USD — an expense that excludes surgery and training. This figure may be unfeasible for the thousands of Australians who would benefit from such a device. If the current trend of Moore’s Law continues, electrode density will increase whilst the cost of the device will decrease — a trend analogous to the increase in power and improved price of computers in the last century. This pixel density will hopefully improve to the point of achieving near-normal visual acuity. The 60 pixels, while helpful in regaining some functionality, cannot compare to the some 96 million photoreceptor cells in the retina — 5 million of which are located in the cone-dense macula. Nevertheless, artificial vision is an exciting and innovative technology currently under development. While much research is still needed, further advancements in bionics will one day make visual prosthetics a ubiquitous and affordable technology to those in need. About the writer: Joshua Nicholls was the 2021 winner of the Let's Torque competition. Joshua : I am a 5th-year neuroscience and biochemistry student at the Swinburne University of Technology. I finished my Health Science degree a few years ago, majoring in neuroscience. I am now completing my final few subjects in my Bachelor of Science, with biochemistry as my major. For the state-wide Let’s torque competition, I changed my pitch to artificial vision, hence its title, Bionics: Seeing into the Future—a catchy pun, if I do say so myself. I made the rather complex topic of visual prosthetics approachable and understandable to the general audience by, as stated previously, conveying a story. I asked my audience to consider losing vision, if not completely, at least partially. Considering this, I then asked them to imagine what life must be like for the some 13 million Australians of whom suffer from some form of visual impairment. This exercise brought home the very real phenomenon of visual impairment, which many of us have—or will—be impacted. The solution for currently untreatable vision loss is already underway: The Bionic Eye, as it is colloquially known. While it may sound like science fiction, bionics (or prosthetics) are nothing new; artificial hearing through the cochlear implant and artificial limbs are becoming rather ubiquitous. I briefly detailed a few diseases for which visual prosthetics may be appropriate, such as age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa, and spoke about past and current clinical trials demonstrating their efficacy. To end my pitch, I talked about the lasting impact these devices will have on people’s lives and the future developments required. In doing so, I relayed the past, present, and future of the bionic eye, which detailed a coherent and relatable story to my audience. I was successful in my pitch and won first place among the state! It was an absolute privilege even to have been a part of this competition; coming first place was an added honour and will remain one of the highlights of my life. I believe this experience will serve as a footstone toward my career in science and science communication. If anyone has any desires to get their foot in the door of this field, get your name and face out there and just go for it! References: Ong, J. M., & da Cruz, L. (2012). The bionic eye: a review. Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 40(1), 6-17. Tassicker, G. (1956). Preliminary report on a retinal stimulator. The British journal of physiological optics, 13(2), 102-105. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). National Health Survey: First Results, 2017–18. Canberra: ABS Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/national-health-survey-first-results/latest-release Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Eye health. Canberra: AIHW Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/eye-health/eye-health Taylor, P., Bilgrami, A., & Pezzullo, L. (2010). Clear focus: The economic impact of vision loss in Australia in 2009. Vision2020. Retrieved from https://www.vision2020australia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Access_Economics_Clear_Focus_Full_Report.pdf Mehta, S. (2015). Age-related macular degeneration. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 42(3), 377-391. Foreman, J., Xie, J., Keel, S., van Wijngaarden, P., Sandhu, S. S., Ang, G. S., . . . Taylor, H. R. (2017). The prevalence and causes of vision loss in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians: the National eye health survey. Ophthalmology, 124(12), 1743-1752. Taylor, H. R., Keeffe, J. E., Vu, H. T. V., Wang, J. J., Rochtchina, E., Mitchell, P., & Pezzullo, M. L. (2005). Vision loss in Australia. Med J Aust, 182(11), 565-568. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06815.x Calabrese, A., Bernard, J.-B., Hoffart, L., Faure, G., Barouch, F., Conrath, J., & Castet, E. (2011). Wet versus dry age-related macular degeneration in patients with central field loss: different effects on maximum reading speed. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 52(5), 2417-2424. Cheung, L. K., & Eaton, A. (2013). Age‐related macular degeneration. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 33(8), 838-855. Luo, Y. H.-L., & Da Cruz, L. (2016). The Argus® II retinal prosthesis system. Progress in retinal and eye research, 50, 89-107. SecondSight. (2021). SecondSight: Life in a New Light. Retrieved from https://secondsight.com/ Ho, A. C., Humayun, M. S., Dorn, J. D., Da Cruz, L., Dagnelie, G., Handa, J., . . . Hafezi, F. (2015). Long-term results from an epiretinal prosthesis to restore sight to the blind. Ophthalmology, 122(8), 1547-1554. Mills, J., Jalil, A., & Stanga, P. (2017). Electronic retinal implants and artificial vision: journey and present. Eye, 31(10), 1383-1398. Pouratian N., Yoshor D., & Greenberg R. (2019). Orion Visual Cortical Prosthesis System Early Feasibility Study: Interim Results. Paper presented at American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting.

Get in touch with the team at OmniSci Magazine! Leave a message for us, send an email, or contact us on our socials! Get in touch Want to get in touch? We'd love to hear from you! Our email is omniscimag@gmail.com . Or, just fill out the form below! Contact Us Thanks for submitting! Submit Subscribe to Our Issues Submit Thanks for submitting!

How should scientific research and political legislation interact, and what role should they play in public discourse? Climate Change, Vaccines & Lockdowns: How and Why Science Has Become a Polarising Political Debate By Mia Horsfall In light of the compounding climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the discussion around how we implement scientific research into political realms is growing, and with it, the controversy. But perhaps the debate surrounding such contentious issues reveals more about how we communicate our science than the quality of the science itself. Edited by Yen Sim & Andrew Lim Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Janna Dingle The degree to which public rhetoric morphs and formulates enactment of scientific research in topics such as climate change, energy politics and vaccinations has become increasingly evident in recent years, as evidenced by polarising public debates surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the ‘School Strike’ movements. The ‘apocalyptic narratives’ employed by climate protesters are often combated with condescension and intellectual elitism propagated by political figures, resulting in a remarkably detached exchange of dialogue and a good deal of reticence but an overwhelming lack of progress. Reluctance to accept COVID-19 vaccinations and lockdowns is indicative more of a dogmatic belief in exertion of liberty at all costs rather than a measured comprehension of the implications of such decisions. Likewise, discussions surrounding implementation of nuclear power showcase the disconnect between scientific research and economic policy making, resulting in conflict and frustration as the two struggle to reconcile. The role of science in political, legal and social spheres is contingent upon public discourses surrounding its relevance and remains largely subservient to public opinion. Scientific matters should increasingly, “be studied in relation to how they impact social structures,” (Holmberg & Alvinius, 2020) and it is in this way we can hope to understand the dimorphic nature of research and its intersection with political and social implications. To understand how scientific discourse shifts from a research-centric discussion to a tool to uphold political ideology, it is crucial to deconstruct the rhetoric utilised by opposing sides of the climate debate to advance support for their cause. Examination of the discourse on different sides of the ‘School Strike’ movement ironically reveals that both sides stem from the same source: an analysis of the authority of youth in political spheres. The succinct, punchy statements used to endorse student climate advocacy relish in the youth of the protesters – “you’ll die of old age, we’ll die of climate change”, “I’d be in school if the earth was cool”, “it’s getting hot in here so take off all your coals,'' (Kamarck, 2019). By focusing the targets of the movement on ‘abstract’ actors such as legal, political and economic ecosystems, the movement distances itself from the accepted scientific consensus and focuses on the issue of the mobilisation of policymakers in climate action. These ‘apocalyptic narratives’ do not question the authority of the science communicated, instead hinging their argument upon the challenge of inciting political change from a youth-driven movement. Their narrative relies on the distinct lack of political influence historically held by youth, and satirises the predicted response of politicians such as the then Federal Minister for Education Dan Tehan who asserted that the strikes were orchestrated by professional activists and children were missing valuable class time (Perinotto & Johnston, 2019). The difficulty then posed is that formulating the protester’s messages from a place of pathos drives the argument further away from the scientifically enforced urgency and enables politically interested individuals to divert the argument from one of scientific claim to one about challenging the authority of youth to speak with regards to politics. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s suggestion to the school strikers to, “get a bit of context and perspective,” (Perinotto & Johnston, 2019), is saturated not only with elitism but an enforcement of the notion of political superiority, that some knowledge remains incomprehensible to the public sphere and is privy only to the select few. It remains, then, that the biggest obstacle in the school strikers’ position is the unification of scientific authorities, politicians and the emotionally driven and passionate youth. But perhaps the politicisation of climate change has more to do with political dichotomisation than the controversy of the science itself. Chinn, Hart and Soroka assert that, “beliefs about climate change have become a marker of partisan affiliation,” (Chinn, Hart, & Soroka 2020), and this is not the only realm of scientific contention to become politicised. Opposition to government-mandated lockdowns, vaccinations and regulations of genetic modification of food all stem from one crucial point of difference in belief; the degree to which the government should have the ability to regulate everyday happenings of our lives. This is not a new phenomenon. This key difference is at the heart of bipartisanship and is the central debate in almost every political issue. So perhaps the issue is not inherently the politicisation of scientific discourse, as implementation of policy in reference to new scientific findings will inevitably become politicised, but the monotonous rhetoric employed by the left and the right. As Kamarck upholds, “it is the lack of trust in government that may be one of the foundational barriers to effective environmental action,” (Kamarck, 2019). If we take the intent of science as being to seek a degree of objective insight about the nature of the world and its happenings, it will naturally lead to division in political climates saturated by individual motivation and greed. A 2020 American study utilised word frequency analysis software of articles from four major newspapers (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post) to quantitatively determine the number of times scientists’ names were mentioned in regard to phrases such as ‘global warming’ or ‘fracking’, in comparison to politicians (see Figure 1 & 2). Whilst this understandably has to do with matters of climate policy making and does not in and of itself convey an image of the politicised nature of the debate, it does provide significant insight into the shifting obstacles faced in attaining climate action. What provides significantly greater insight is an analysis conducted of the language variance within the media of the parties across the years. From this data, we see that whilst the difference in rhetoric across the two major parties is significant, it is also largely unchanging. It is this divide in political narratives that fosters a sense of distrust and scepticism amongst individuals. Where more left-leaning parties emphasise the social inequalities that will be expounded upon as the consequences of climate change compound, conservatively leaning parties perpetuate the notion that climate action stipulates a greater control of the government on energy politics and enables less agency to the individual. In their narrative, the economic consequences outweigh the benefit of transition to renewable energy systems. From such polarised discourse, it becomes apparent that the way science operates within social spheres has more to do with pre-existing flaws in systemic structures than the quality of the science itself. Figure 1 (2) Figure 2 (2) Of course, a key consideration of how political and activist narratives impact the science that is upheld is through the medialisation of science. ‘Medialisation’ is the concept that science and media should engage in a reciprocal relationship, where scientists use media for broader impact and to advocate for more public funding while the media relies on interest to propagate scientific breakthroughs (Scheufele, 2014). The utility of science comes only from what is accepted and implemented in public opinion, hence scientific practice continues to grow into these frameworks, particularly in discussions around climate change or gene editing technologies. Ultimately, as Scheufele asserts, “the production of reliable knowledge about the natural world has always been a social and political endeavour,” (Scheufele, 2014), one that the media capitalises on to make as economical as possible. That is, it is in most media outlets’ interest to frame politics and science as being at odds with each other as, “coverage increases dramatically if and when issues become engulfed in political or societal controversy,” (Scheufele, 2014). Whilst science cannot and should never be removed from subjugation to moral scrutiny, discourse remains dominated by discussion surrounding the legitimacy of those advocating for one side or the other, rather than the quality of the science itself. Of course bias exists in media outlets , but is propagated by the bias of the consumers, as a consequence of ‘motivated reasoning’. That is, individuals subconsciously place more weight upon information that confirms pre-existing viewpoints and divert more energy into finding flawed reasoning for all that does not concur with preconceived perceptions. The result is a positive feedback loop that is hard to curtail. Individuals form opinions from information they are exposed to in the media, subconsciously seek further information to fortify their initial opinion, leading to opinion reinforcement. In this way, microcosmic ‘mediated realities’ form, each individual inhabiting a vastly different scientific landscape than those of the opposite opinion. In these realities, it is the implications of policy making rather than objective reasoning about the science itself that prevails, resulting in scientific breakthrough perpetually existing subserviently to the opinion of the people, irrespective of whether that opinion is informed. This consequently influences what scientific research is allocated what proportion of public funding, inadvertently providing a quantitative discriminator in what ‘sides’ are upheld in the media. So, what role should science play in political discourse? How do we ensure a mediation of scientific advice and democratic decision making? Darrin Durant of the University of Melbourne unpacks this question, deliberating on whether science should assume a ‘servant’ or ‘partner’ role when it exists within public discourse. Durant argues that if science were to assume the role of a servant (acting in an advisory position to politics), public perception would descend into a degree of populism, overrun by conspiracists and anti-pluralists. Rather, if it were to exist as a ‘partner’, legitimising the authority held by scientific figures, a degree of objectivity could be applied to an otherwise dynamic and transient political landscape. It is only by bridging the political dichotomy that prevails in media and social spheres that scientific discourse will cease to fall prey to political weaponization, existing as a level-ground for rational debate rather than morphing in accordance with ideology. References: Alvinius, A & Holmberg, A. (2020). Children’s protest in relation to the climate emergency: A qualitative study on a new form of resistance promoting political and social change. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0907568219879970. Chinn, S., Hart, P., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1075547019900290. Durant, D. (2018). Servant or partner? The role of expertise and knowledge in democracy. The Conversation.https://theconversation.com/servant-or-partner-the-role-of-expertise-and-knowledge-in-democracy-92026. Durant, D. (2021). Who are you calling 'anti-science'? How science serves social and political agendas. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/who-are-you-calling-anti-science-how-science-serves-social-and-political-agendas-74755 . Feldman, H. (2020). A rhetorical perspective on youth environmental activism. Jcom.sissa.it. Retrieved 11 September 2021, from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1906_2020_C07.pdf . Kamarck, E. (2019). The challenging politics of climate change. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/ . Perinotto, T., & Johnston, P. (2019). What our leaders said about the school climate change strike. The Fifth Estate. https://thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/climate-change-news/what-our-leaders-said-about-the-school-climate-change-strike/ . Scheufele, D. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Pnas.org. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/Supplement_4/13585.full.pdf. The best climate strike signs from around the globe – in pictures. The Guardian. (2021). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2019/sep/20/the-best-climate-strike-signs-from-around-the-globe-in-pictures . Image reference - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1075547019900290

Where The Wild Things Were By Ashleigh Hallinan We may consider ourselves to be the most advanced species on the planet, but this has come at the cost of the natural world. Delve into this article to gain insight into how ecosystem restoration plays a role in nature-based solutions for biodiversity loss and climate change mitigation globally. Edited by Niesha Baker & Caitlin Kane Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Jess Nguyen The scale of threats posed to humanity and the natural world is confronting and difficult to grasp. The natural world is being pushed towards its brink, but it’s not too late to act. Ecosystem restoration plays an important role in nature-based solutions for biodiversity loss, food insecurity, and climate change. Global discourse and action also need to continue moving towards greater acknowledgement of Traditional Owners and local communities in biodiversity conservation efforts and climate change resilience. Ecosystem degradation is an accelerating calamity of our own making. A recent study from Frontier Forest and Global Change shows that humans have altered 97 per cent of the Earth's land, meaning a mere 3 per cent of land remains untouched, or ‘ecologically intact’ (1). ‘Ecosystem degradation’ refers to the loss of natural productivity from environments as a result of human activity. Many of the world’s ecosystems have been pushed beyond the point of unassisted self-recovery due to a mix of stressors, most of which are human-induced. Ecosystems are made up of interacting organisms and the physical environment in which they are found, so disturbing the balance of an ecosystem can be disastrous for all the living things relying on it, including humans. If trends of ecosystem degradation continue, 95 per cent of the Earth’s land could become degraded by 2050 (2). In this scenario, we would face irreversible damage. But how does this affect you and me? Beyond the role ecosystem degradation plays in accelerating climate change and the loss of countless species from our planet, its impact on ecosystem services is also of great significance. Ecosystem services are the benefits humans derive from the natural environment. These range from the oxygen we breathe to aesthetic appreciation of the natural environments around us. These services are necessary for life to exist on Earth, and without them, our quality of life would decline drastically. Luckily for us, humans are capable of learning from their mistakes, and efforts are being made to address these global concerns. Ecosystem restoration is the process of reversing ecosystem degradation to regain environmental health and sustainability. This often involves re-introducing plant and animal populations that may have been lost, as well as restoring their habitats. Abandoned farmland is one example of where this can be achieved. Farmlands are one of the most vital ecosystems in sustaining humankind. Not only do they provide us with food, but they are also home to a variety of organisms within and above the soil. Many of these organisms play a critical role in soil health, which is essential for agriculture. Agriculture has transformed human societies and fuelled a global population that has grown from one billion to almost eight billion people since around 1804 (3). This has had significant consequences on natural systems worldwide, particularly as farmland has continuously expanded into surrounding landscapes. Agroecosystems now cover around 40 per cent of Earth's terrestrial surface (4). However, despite a growing demand for food due to the world’s rapidly increasing population, the amount of farmland being abandoned outweighs the amount of land being converted to farmland (5). There are an estimated 950 million to 1.1 billion acres of deserted farmland globally (6). This unproductive farmland could be converted to meet conservation goals and mitigate the impacts of climate change. For example, farmland could be regenerated with carbon-capturing forests. These would contribute to sequestering large amounts of anthropogenic CO2, water retention, soil fertility, and providing habitats for a variety of organisms. Abandoned farmland could also be re-established with native vegetation to provide habitats for animals. This was the case at the Monjebup Nature Reserves, located in south-west Western Australia (WA) on Noongar Country, established by Bush Heritage Australia between 2007 and 2014 (7). Despite being a biodiversity hotspot, animals and plants in the Monjebup Nature Reserves have faced many threats. These were mainly in the form of introduced species and land clearing for agriculture. Decades of land clearing resulted in a transition from deep-rooted woody vegetation systems to shallow-rooted annual cropping systems across the south-western Australian landscape. This caused a decrease in natural habitats and accumulation of salt in soil and water, which contributed significantly to biodiversity loss. In 2007, Bush Heritage Australia secured the Monjebup Nature Reserves in a bid to establish important conservation areas. Since then, they have restored nearly 1,000 acres of cleared land in the north of the Reserve (8). An important contributor to the success of this project was Indigenous knowledge, which reflects a long history of close connection with the land. These unique human-land relationships provide opportunities for learning in environmental research, particularly regarding land management and sustainability. The Monjebup Nature Reserves now protect a significant patch of native bushland on the land of the Noongar-Minang and Koreng people. This has been critical in restoring the heavily cleared landscape between WA's Stirling Ranges and Fitzgerald River National Parks, reconnecting remnant bush in the south with that of the Corackerup Nature Reserve further north. It has also provided habitat for vulnerable animal species such as the Malleefowl, Western Whipbird, Carnaby's Cockatoo, and Tammar Wallaby. Local knowledge plays a critical role in re-introducing plants and animals by identifying species suitable to particular environments. In the Monjebup Nature Reserves, re-introduction of native plants involved research on local plant communities and soil conditions in immediately surrounding areas. This research also involved communication with Traditional Owners who had used the area for gathering raw materials, food processing, hunting, stone tool manufacturing, and seasonal movement over millennia (9). Seeds of suitable flora were then collected in and around the site for the restoration works. It is crucial that consultation with Traditional Owners, like that seen in the Monjebup Nature Reserves project, becomes a more common practice. An estimated 37 per cent of all remaining natural lands are under Indigenous management (10). These lands protect 80 per cent of global biodiversity and the majority of intact forests, highlighting the value of Indigenous knowledge (11). We have left ourselves a challenging yet attainable goal. Raising public awareness on the importance of ecosystems and improving our knowledge on the interconnectedness of the natural world will be key to decreasing our impacts on Earth's incredible ecosystems. In March 2019, the United Nations General Assembly announced 2021 to 2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (12). El Salvador’s Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Lina Pohl, proposed the creation of the Decade in a speech to the General Assembly. More than 70 countries from all latitudes quickly jumped on board, committing to safeguarding and restoring ecosystems globally (13). 2030 also happens to be the deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals, which are a collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed to address the global challenges we face, and provide a ‘blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all’ (14). 2030 is also the year scientists have identified as the last chance to prevent catastrophic climate change (15). As part of the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, the United Nations has called for countries to make the pledge to restore at least 2.5 billion acres of degraded land - an area larger than China (16). This will require international cooperation, led by the UN Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Humans have an essential role in halting and reversing the damage that has been caused so far. Ecosystem restoration is not a quick or easy process. It requires deep, systematic changes to the economic, political, and social systems we currently have in place. But the natural world is finite, and it is important we continue taking steps towards a more sustainable future. References: 1. Plumptre, Andrew J., Daniele Baisero, R. Travis Belote, Ella Vázquez-Domínguez, Soren Faurby, Włodzimierz Jȩdrzejewski, Henry Kiara, Hjalmar Kühl, Ana Benítez-López, Carlos Luna-Aranguré, Maria Voigt, Serge Wich, William Wint, Juan Gallego-Zamorano, Charlotte Boyd . “Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 4 (15 April 2021): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.626635. 2, 4. Scholes, Robert, L Montanarella, Anastasia Brainich, Nichole Barger. “The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration: Summary for Policymakers”. Bonn, Germany: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2018. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2018_ldr_full_report_book_v4_pages.pdf 3. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations,“FAOSTAT”, Accessed 8 September 2021, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home . 5, 6. Yang, Yi, Sarah E. Hobbie, Rebecca R. Hernandez, Joseph Fargione, Steven M. Grodsky, David Tilman, Yong-Guan Zhu, Yu Luo, Timothy M. Smith, Jacob M. Jungers, Ming Yang, Wei-Qiang Chen. “Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth”. One Earth 3, no. 2 (August 2020): 176–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.019. 7, 8, 9. Bush Heritage Australia,“Monjebup Nature Reserves (WA),” Accessed 8 September 2021, https://www.bushheritage.org.au/places-we-protect/western-australia/monjebup . 10. Garnett, Stephen T., Neil D. Burgess, Julia E. Fa, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, Zsolt Molnár, Cathy J. Robinson, James E. M. Watson, Kerstin K.Zander, Beau Austin, Eduardo S. Brondizio, Neil French Collier, Tom Duncan, Erle Ellis, Hayley Geyle, Micha V. Jackson, Harry Jonas, Pernilla Malmer, Ben McGowan, Amphone Sivongxay, Ian Leiper. “A Spatial Overview of the Global Importance of Indigenous Lands for Conservation‘. Nature Sustainability 1, no. 7 (July 2018): 369–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6 . 11. Ogar, Edwin, Gretta Pecl, and Tero Mustonen. ‘Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis’. One Earth 3, no. 2 (August 2020): 162–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006. 12, 13, 14, 15. United Nations Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “About the UN Decade,” Accessed 8 September 2021, http://www.decadeonrestoration.org/about-un-decade . 16. United Nations Environment Management Group, “The UN Sustainable Development Goals – UN Environment Management Group”, Accessed 8 September 2021, https://unemg.org/our-work/supporting-the-sdgs/the-un-sustainable-development-goals/ .

Humans of UniMelb Research - Is it For Me? By Renee Papaluca Thinking about completing your Honours year or a PhD at UniMelb? This column has some advice for you, courtesy of current research students. Edited by Ruby Dempsey & Sam Williams Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Gemma Van der Hurk Science is everywhere, but how can we contribute to furthering our knowledge of science? I caught up with some current research students to learn more about the Honours-PhD pathway and their experience studying science at the University of Melbourne. Caitlin Kane Caitlin is a current Honours student at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. In her spare time, she likes to go on bike rides and read. What was the ‘lightbulb moment’ that prompted you to study science? “When I was five, I had all these books that covered basic topics like the human body and the ocean. I thought they were wild! I was just a really curious kid that loved learning things and being certain about things. For me, science was an approach to learning and understanding the world that [was] very investigative. I guess I was just curious about a lot of things and science just took that curiosity and said, ‘now you can do anything with it’". Why did you choose to study Honours? “Honours, at least for me, is a clarifying year.” “Doing a bachelor’s degree in science doesn’t [necessarily] make you a scientist … A lot of the skills you need as a scientist are practical ones; depending on your area [of study] ... Those skills are very different from what you actually learn in university.” “I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with my degree as there are a lot of options, like doing a PhD or ... going into the workforce… I thought that Honours would really help me clarify what kinds of science I like and give me time to figure out what I wanted to do next.” What’s involved in your research? “There are many variants of HPV (human papillomavirus) circulating in Australia - some of those variants cause cancer, and some are covered by vaccination. To understand how well vaccination is working in Australia, I test for HPV in patient samples, note the patient’s vaccination status, and examine the data to see which HPV variants are prevalent right now. This involves lab skills like pipetting, running polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) and extracting DNA. When I say ‘I’ do all these steps, it’s really like 10 people ... There are a lot of different people who do different parts of the project to keep it running.” What advice would you give to prospective Honours students? “Be informed of your options, don’t be scared of talking to supervisors, and talk to older students. Everytime I would ask an older student … [’what do you wish you would have known?’] they would come out with killer advice. That’s the only trick!” “The best piece of advice I got was that ‘some supervisors only want an extra set of hands’… They just want the work to be done and that is not the kind of supervisor you want.” Alex Ritter Alex is currently completing his 2nd PhD year in the Department of Physics. In his spare time, he enjoys singing in choirs, doing crosswords, and doting over his housemate’s cat. What was the ‘lightbulb moment’ that prompted you to study science? “Going through school, there are always those things you [tend to] gravitate towards...I really liked maths and science... and wanted to do something to do with them. In high school, I also had some opportunities to do extension physics… [which] really got me interested [in tertiary study]... Luckily, it's still something I enjoy so it was the right choice.” Why did you choose to continue to a PhD following your Masters? “I did Masters of Science in Physics straight after undergrad. I really enjoyed it! I loved … really getting into the graduate subjects; diving into more detail” “[The thing] I found the most challenging was the transition into research and that whole different style of thinking. My experience was that your first year is still coursework and learning high level topics and your second year is largely research. So, I found in second year - especially towards the end - finishing the thesis was quite challenging but ultimately rewarding” What are you currently researching? “My general area of research is theoretical particle physics. This describes the tiny, subatomic particles that make us up. So, we look at electrons, inside neutrons and all the forces that hold them together. I work in dark matter ... It doesn’t give off light but it interacts gravitationally. My research generally is introducing new sub-atomic particles and forces to try and explain what dark matter might be.” Can you have a life outside of your PhD? “The thing with a PhD and research, especially in physics, is that you set your own schedule which has its pros and cons. During the pandemic, I found it difficult to keep myself motivated whilst being stuck inside all day. Due to the flexibility, it really depends on how you want to approach your PhD. I still wanted to have a life outside of my PhD. I don’t wake up and think about my PhD 24/7! I still do a fair bit of choral singing as a hobby.” “My advice is that you can balance things in a PhD but it comes down to what your personality is like and how well you can set boundaries. For example, are you someone who gets absolutely absorbed in tasks and spends hours on them? Do you overwork yourself or do you underwork yourself? How good are you at time management? I think the best thing to do is to be self-aware about how you are as a worker and researcher before you get started.” What advice would you give to prospective Masters or PhD students? “Be honest with yourself and be honest with your supervisor. Know who you are and know what your limits are and try to build everything around that.” “I think the hardest part for me was knowing what to do at the start of the process. There isn’t a lot of information [available]... In terms of picking a supervisor, I think the best advice is to try and chat to them as honestly as you can about the things they do and what kinds of students they like.. For example, try and see how busy your supervisor is. Sometimes, a supervisor can be great, their research is great and can be super interesting... But, often they’ll be in high demand with very little time … to be a hands-on supervisor. I think also trying to get an understanding of what the working relationship will be like is also important.”