Search Results

By Andrew Lim < Back to Issue 3 Hope, Humanity and the Starry Night Sky By Andrew Lim 10 September 2022 Edited by Manfred Cain and Yvette Marris Illustrated by Ravon Chew Next Image 1: The Arecibo Observatory looms large over the forests of Puerto Rico The eerie signal reverberates out over the Caribbean skies, amplified by the telescope below. It oscillates between two odd resonating tones for little more than a couple of minutes, then shuts off. Eminent scholars, government administrators and elected representatives watch in wonderment, their eyes glued open. The forest birds and critters chirp and sing. It is November 16, 1974 – from a little spot in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Earth is about to pop its head out the door to say ‘hello’. Those sing-song tunes, beamed out into space on modulated radio waves, are a binary message designed for some alien civilisation– a snapshot of humanity in 1679 bits. It sounds like the beginning of a bad sci-fi flick: the kind that ends with little green men coming down in UFOs for a cheap-CGI first contact. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t. Instead, the legacy of those telescope-amplified sounds – that ‘Arecibo Message’ – has a place in history as a symbol of human cooperation, here on Earth rather than in the stars. The message’s unifying vision imbued the famous ‘pale blue dot’ monologue of its co-creator Carl Sagan; and led to the launch of a multi-year international programme designing its successor message 45 years on, presenting extra-terrestrial communication as a mirror of our earth-bound relations. A unified message symbolizing a unified humanity. The previous feature in this series (Discovery, Blue Skies…and Partisan Bickering?) ended with a declaration of nuance: that science in politics matters solely because it transcends partisan bounds with clear analysis. Yet, looking at stories like Arecibo’s, so imbued with human optimism, maybe this cold, logical formulation isn’t enough. Perhaps for all its focus on appropriations bills, initiative funding and flawed infrastructure, that perspective lends insufficient weight to science’s ability to inspire, to cut through the fog of day-to-day policy battles with a beacon of what could yet be. But is this talk of hope just ideological posturing – a triumphant humanism gone mad? Or could there be some merit to its romantic vision of humanity speaking with one voice to the stars? Might it possibly be that science really is the key to bridging our divisions? COOPERATION AMIDST CHAOS Well, why not begin in the times of Arecibo? After all, the interstellar message came at a key moment in the Cold War. Just a few months before, US President Richard Nixon had made his way to Moscow to meet with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, leader of the USSR. The signing of a new arms treaty, a decade-long economic agreement and a friendly state dinner at the Kremlin all seemed to indicate a world inching away from the edge of nuclear apocalypse. Such pacifist optimism is found readily in the message’s surrounding documents, with its research proposal speaking glowingly of future messages designed and informed by “international scientific consultations…[similar to] the first Soviet-American conference on communication with extraterrestrial [sic] intelligence.” Indeed, it seems the spirit of the age. Soon after the Arecibo message’s transmission, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project would see an American Apollo spacecraft docking with a Soviet Soyuz module. Mission commanders Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov conducted experiments, exchanged gifts, and even engaged in the world’s first international space handshake – a symbol of shared peace and prosperity for both superpowers. Image 2: Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov shake hands on the Apollo-Soyuz mission Apollo-Soyuz marked an effective end to the US-USSR ‘Space Race’ (discussed in Part I of this series), and would lead to successor programmes, including a series of missions where American space shuttles would send astronauts to the Russian space station Mir, and eventually the building of the 21st-century International Space Station (ISS). Science seemed capable of forging cooperation amidst the greatest of disagreements, transcending our human borders and divides. Frank Drake, the designer of the Arecibo Message, was filled with optimism, hoping that his message might herald the beginning of a new age, marked by united scientific discovery and unparalleled human growth. He triumphantly declared to the Cornell Chronicle on the day of its transmission that “the sense that something in the universe is much more clever than we are has preceded almost every important advance in applied technology. SCIENTIFIC SPHERES OF INTEREST Yet this rose-tinted vision of science as the great mediator perhaps has a few more cracks in it than its advocates like to admit. Even at the height of Nixon’s Cold War détente, science was not pure intellectual collaboration. Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State, pioneered ‘triangular diplomacy’, the art of playing adversaries off against one another with alternating threats and incentives. In later years, he would declare that “it was always better for [the US] to be closer to either Moscow or Peking than either was to the other”. And as he opened channels of communication with China, it was science that would pave the way for a stronger relationship. In the Shanghai Communique negotiated on Nixon’s 1972 trip to China, both sides “discussed specific areas in such fields as science [and] technology…in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial [and] undert[ook] to facilitate the further development of [them].” Scientific collaboration (often manipulated by spy agencies from the CIA to the KGB) was the carrot beside the military stick – a central part of building alliances in a world of realpolitik. To Kissinger and his colleagues, the world was to be divided into Image 3: US President Richard Nixon shakes hands with CCP Chairman Mao Zedong in China in 1972 spheres of influence, even in times of peace – and science was best used as a way of strengthening and shoring up your own prosperity. It is a realist view of science diplomacy that continues to this day, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noting in Image 4: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with his Cambodian counterpart Prak Sokhonn in September 2021, pledging additional aid and vaccine doses. 2014 that “educational exchanges, cultural tours and scientific collaboration…may garner few headlines, but… [can] influence the next generation of U.S. and [foreign] leaders in a way no other initiative can match”. To both Clinton and Kissinger, science is an instrument of foreign policy, whether deployed overtly in winning over current governments or more subtly in shaping the views of future ones. For them, amidst competing interests and simmering tensions, we ignore science’s soft power at our own peril. Just look at China’s distribution over Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines in the pandemic. In October 2020, January 2021 and September 2021, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi went on tours of Southeast Asia, promising vaccine aid while pushing closer connections between China and the rest of Asia. Last year, it was estimated that China had promised a total of over 255 million vaccine doses – a key step in building stronger economic and military ties in an increasingly tense region. Indeed, in mid-2021, just as concerns about Chinese vaccine efficacy grew, US President Joe Biden announced “half [a] billion doses with no strings attached…[no] pressure for favours, or potential concessions” from the sidelines of a G7 Summit. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin travelled across Southeast Asia. In the the Philippines he renewed a military deal just as a new shipment of vaccines was announced – a clear indicator of the linkage between medical and military diplomacy, something reinforced when Vice President Kamala Harris landed in Singapore later that year to declare the US “an arsenal of safe and effective vaccines for our entire world.” Australia is key to vaccine diplomacy too. On his visit here earlier this year, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a point of visiting the University of Melbourne’s Biomedical Precinct to talk about COVID-19, declaring on Australian television that our nation was central to “looking Image 5: United States Secretary of State Lloyd J Austin III meets with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2021 for negotiations on renewing the Visiting Forces Agreement at the problems that afflict our people as well as the opportunities…dealing with COVID…[in] new coalitions [and] new partnerships.” These views are backed up locally too. Sitting down for an exclusive interview with OmniSci Magazine last year, Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria, was keen to characterise her work in terms of these developments, reminding us that Victoria had been key to “improving the understanding of the immunology and epidemiology of the virus, developing vaccines and treatments and leading research into the social impact of the pandemic”, and emphasising Australia’s national interest, declaring that “global policymakers understand that a high performing science and research system benefits the broader economy…science and research contribute to jobs and prosperity for all rather than just the few.” Science, it seems, whether in vaccines, trade or exchanges, just like fifty years ago, is again to be a key tool for grand strategy and national interests. Image 6: Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria ARGUMENTS AND ARMS But perhaps even this might be too optimistic an outlook – for that simmering balance of power occasionally boils over. We need only to look at what happened when the détente of Nixon and Brezhnev was dashed to pieces with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The policy was roundly condemned as sheer naïveté in the face of wily adversaries, with President Ronald Reagan later describing détente in a radio address as “what a farmer has with his turkey – until Thanksgiving Day”. Science was the first target for diplomatic attacks. After the invasion, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) launched legislation barring the National Science Foundation from funding trips to the USSR. And the push seemed bipartisan, with Representative George Brown Jr. (D-CA-36) proposing a House Joint Resolution enacting an immediate “halt [to] official travel related to scientific and technical cooperation with the Soviet Union”. Image 7: Russia’s cosmonauts board the ISS on 18th March 2022, shortly before Russia ends its participation in the program Now, as we face war on the European continent, even the ISS – the descendant of Apollo-Soyuz’s seemingly-apolitical scientific endeavours – seems to be falling apart spectacularly. On April 2 this year, Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, announced that it would be ending its participation in the ISS program, demanding a “full and unconditional removal of…sanctions” imposed over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Earlier in the year, Roscosmos’ Director General Dmitry Rogozin openly suggested on Twitter that the ISS being without Russian involvement would lead to “an uncontrolled deorbit and fall [of the station] into the United States or Europe”, alluding to “the option of dropping a 500-ton structure [on] India and China.” Rogozin’s threats became even more pronounced as the war continued, with Roscosmos producing a video depicting Russia’s two astronauts on the station not bringing NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei back to Earth with them (American astronauts primarily go to and return from space via Russian Soyuz capsules). Shared by Russian state news, its chilling final scenes show the Russian segment of the ISS detaching too, with Vande Hei presumably left to die in space aboard the station. Such attacks need not remain rhetorical, either. Scientific advancements have long been tied to weaponry and defence systems, with mathematicians and physicists from John Littlewood to Richard Feynman involved in making bombs and ballistics in times of war. Even Arecibo, that bastion of a united humanity, began life as a Department of Defence initiative detecting Soviet ballistic missiles. Today, the AUKUS defence partnership – one of the most significant Indo-Pacific defence developments in recent memory – centres on sharing nuclear submarine science and technology, promising scientific cooperation regarding “cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities”. Even if induced by factors beyond our control, such weapons-based science is a far cry from the pacifist ideals of the Arecibo message. Thus, perhaps this messy reality is more central to our science than we like to admit. From the ISS to Australia’s waters, science still is intertwined with conflict and frequently co-opted by geopolitical actors in times of renewed aggression. Science at its worst is mere weaponry. But at its best, it speaks to something greater. HOPE IN THE DARKNESS In June 1977, the world was far from diplomatically stagnant. From the rumblings of Middle Eastern peace (what became the Camp David Accords) to new hopes of nuclear arms reduction, US President Jimmy Carter had quite the array of diplomatic dilemmas to consider. But amidst all that cold politics, he penned a letter to be sent on board the spacecraft Voyager, now the furthest manmade object from our solar system, declaring “We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours…This record represents our hope and our determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe.” And if this magazine has purported to speak to the ‘alien’ – far removed from our human lives - then perhaps we have discovered quite the opposite: that looking out up there is so much about looking in down here. Science presents a way we can look out at the alien and see ourselves – “survive our time…into yours”, finding a path ahead reflected in the inky blackness above. We are often constrained by time and circumstance, forced in the face of nefarious actors to compromise our idealism and use science as a mere weapon or tool. Discovery for discovery’s sake is frequently the first casualty when battle lines are drawn and aggression begun, and too often the political pessimism of the scientist can seem overpowering. But if the stories of broken détentes, diplomatic realpolitik and weaponised technology have made it all feel inevitable, then perhaps it is worth considering the story we began with, looking up into the night sky and remembering that somewhere amidst the stars is a tiny warble in the electromagnetic spectrum. Long after the funds and papers that forged it have faded away, after the people who wrote it have perished, it will continue. In its odd combination of ones and zeroes, it will represent humanity: our contradictions and our fears, our constant foibles and infighting, but also our occasional glimpses of a future beyond them. A signal…a reminder that when the times, the people Image 8: President Jimmy Carter’s message, sent aboard Voyager, the furthest man-made probe from Earth and the ideas line up just right, science can be the torchbearer for something greater. Something so rare that amidst all the ills of the world, it often seems non-existent, and so powerful that over two millennia ago, Aeschylus himself deemed it the very thing given to humanity by Prometheus to save us from destruction – the ideal that transformed us from mortals fixated on ourselves and our deaths to a civilisation capable of great things. “τυφλὰς…ἐλπίδας”, he called it: blind hope. A handshake in a capsule. A life-saving jab on board a ship. A binary message in a bottle, out among the stars. Fleeting images – not of what we are, but of what we can be: visions of blind hope, that sheer belief that we can grow past our worst violent impulses and reach out into the great beyond. Maybe it’s foolish. Maybe it’s naïve. But, on a brisk fall evening, looking out at a sky full of stars, each one more twinkling than the last, it’s easy to stop and imagine…maybe it’s the only thing that matters. Andrew Lim is an Editor and Feature Writer with OmniSci Magazine and led the team behind the Australian Finalist Submission to the New Arecibo Message Challenge. Image Credits (in order): National Atmospheric and Ionosphere Centre; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Archives Nixon White House Photo Office Collection; Kith Serey/Pool via Reuters; Malacanang Presidential Photo via Reuters; The Office of the Lead Scientist of Victoria; AP; National Aeronautics and Space Administration Previous article Next article alien back to

< Back to Issue 2 How to use a time machine Whilst time travel is thought to be nothing more than science fiction, the very laws of physics point to its possibility. Physicists have long sought the answer to such a phenomenon using knowledge from rockets to generating wormholes. by Sabine Elias 10 December 2021 Edited by Niesha Baker Illustrated by Quynh Anh Nguyen So you have just entered the TARDIS machine and are trying to work out how to use it to travel to the past to re-write the present and save the future? Well, look no further because you have come to right place. In this article, I will be describing how to jumpstart your time traveling vehicle and by the end, you will be proficient in navigating your way through the universe and evading time. Do be warned however, that batteries are not included and the simulation may crash at times. Now, you are probably wishing that you could travel back in time to have not clicked this article and saved yourself these two minutes of life that you will never get back. But is time travel really a possibility? We often think about the world as a state of order. Social and political constructs generally keep society running in a systematic manner. But what if I told you the entire universe came to exist from disorder? Before we get to logistics, let me introduce you to a little something known as ‘entropy’. Entropy describes the state of disorder (1). Take a closed bottle containing gas. Once you open this bottle, the gas will diffuse out into the open space with no way to retrieve it in the exact same state back inside the bottle. In essence, this gas has become ‘disordered’ and thus its entropy has increased. For years, scientists have understood that the entropy of the universe is always increasing, which means that stars, planets and galaxies are in constant motion away from each other (1). If we wanted to travel back in time, we would essentially have to reverse every single chemical reaction that has occurred from the point in time we currently stand in, to the point in time that we wish to travel to (2). This is theoretically impossible as we would be violating the laws of physics and decreasing the entropy of the universe but we still do not know if it is physically impossible. Let Brain Cox explain: Another problem with time travel would be altering events of the past. Take the Grandfather Paradox: if someone travelled back in time to kill their ancestor, then the possibility of their existence in the future would be zero (3). Thus, they would have been unable to time travel to begin with to have killed their ancestor. This issue of causality is expanded upon through the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle (4). This states that if an event causes a paradox or changes the past, the possibility of this event occurring would be impossible. However, this principle is not widely accepted by time travel enthusiasts. Now, whilst your TARDIS machine may be nothing but a prop at this point in time, it could still help provide evidence on the possibility of time travel. Take this example: you set up two duplicates of the same clock that read the same time and placed one into a rocket that blasts off into space. The rocket orbits around the Earth and then returns and is compared to the clock that remained on Earth. You would find that less time has passed on the clock that was in the rocket. Why? Because moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks. That is, as you move faster through space, you move slower through time. This is known as Time Dilation (5). An example of time dilation is the comparison of time on the International Space Station (ISS) to the time on Earth. Astronauts who have spent 6 months in the ISS have aged 0.005 seconds less than people on Earth (6). This does not seem like much because the astronauts are not traveling close to the speed of light. To see the effects of time dilation multiply, one would need to be very close to the speed of light. If you were to travel in space at 90 per cent the speed of light, whilst everyone on earth would age by 22 years you would only have aged by 9! Speed is not the only thing that affects how fast we age, gravity also affects our experience of time. A stronger gravitational field means that time travels slower in that field. For instance, your feet age slower than your head considering the slightly smaller gravitational pull on your feet compared to your head. Now take a black hole; we know that black holes have immensely strong gravitational fields where one hour near a black hole would equal approximately 100,000,000 years for a person on earth (7). So what would happen if you travelled through a black hole? No one really knows what occurs inside a black hole but we know trying to enter will likely turn you into spaghetti (8). That being said, we can only observe things that go as far as the event horizon of the black hole, so once something has entered it, we do not know what has happened. Black holes have however, been especially useful in theoretically explaining the possibility of time travel. Placing someone in a strong gravitational field or having them experience motions close to the speed of light would have them experience time slower compared to someone on Earth. This brings us to wormholes. Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts the existence of wormholes which would theoretically permit time travel. To travel to a galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away with the fastest rocket on earth would be impossible as it would take longer than a human lifetime. This is where wormholes come to the rescue. A wormhole would provide us with a shortcut to our location of interest. Imagine folding a paper in half and poking a pen through it to represent your route of travel. You are essentially skipping the length of the paper and traveling from one end to the other. Source: The Independent. (2008). The Big Question: Is time travel possible, and is there any chance (9). You then situate one mouth of the wormhole in a spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light and the other mouth on Earth. If you then went through the mouth on Earth and travelled through to the space craft, you would be traveling back in time. This is because time would be passing much slower at the other end of the wormhole than where you entered from. However, physicists have not yet developed such advanced technology capable of this, but theoretically speaking, this is a possibility if such technology was developed in the future. Whilst you may have thought that time travel was merely based on science fiction, the laws of physics do not forbid its existence. However, here is some food for thought: “If time travel is possible, where are the tourists from the future?” Stephen Hawking Perhaps with time, we may transform this theory into reality. So for the time being, just sit back and enjoy the presence of your TARDIS machine. Perhaps you might even get lost in time from the very thought of time travel. References: 1. Wehrl, Alfred. “General Properties of Entropy.” Reviews of Modern Physics 50, no. 2 (April 1, 1978): 221–60. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.50.221. 2. BBC. “Brian Cox Explains Why Time Travels in One Direction - Wonders of the Universe - BBC Two.” YouTube, March 10, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSoaiubuA0. 3. Smith, Nicholas J.J. “Time Travel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, November 14, 2013. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel/#GraPar. 4. Carlini, A., V.P. Frolov, M.B. Mensky, I.D. Novikov, and H.H. Soleng. “Time machines: The principle of self-consistency as a consequence of the principle of minimal action.” International Journal of Modern Physics, no. 05 (October 1995): 557–80. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218271895000399. 5. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Time Dilation | Explanation, Examples, & Twin Paradox.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/science/time-dilation. 6. Dickerson, Kelly. “Here’s Why Astronauts Age Slower than the Rest of Us Here on Earth.” Business Insider Australia, August 20, 2015. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/do-astronauts-age-slower-than-people-on-earth-2015-8. 7. Gharat, Sarvesh Vikas. “Relativity and Time Dilation.” International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology 7, no. 11 (November 30, 2019): 650–51. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2019.11103. 8. "Death by spaghettification: Scientists record last moments of star devoured by black hole." NewsRx Health & Science, November 1, 2020, 236. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A639405517/AONE?u=unimelb&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6812ee05. 9. “The Big Question: Is Time Travel Possible, and Is There Any Chance.” The Independent, February 8, 2008. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/big-question-time-travel-possible-and-there-any-chance-it-will-ever-take-place-779761.html. Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

The Intellectual’s False Dilemma: Art vs Science By Natalie Cierpisz The age-old debate once again resurfaces. How do art and science truly interact? Is one dependent on the other? How does the ‘art intellectual’ embrace science, and how does the ‘science intellectual’ embrace art? Is this all a meaningless debate anyway? Edited by Andrew Lim, Mia Horsfall & Hamish Payne Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Casey Boswell The autumnal Melbourne wind whistles through the naked plane trees lining South Lawn, the sky is flat and grey. Two individuals who regard themselves and only themselves as ‘intellectual paragons’ are seated on a somewhat uncomfortable wooden bench, a perfect perch for people-watching, yet they are rather egotistical and notice only their own presence. One carefully places down their black coffee to light a hand-rolled cigarette; they are a liberal arts intellectual. As the wind grows stronger, the other tightly wraps a lab coat around themselves, and pushes a pair of wire-rimmed spectacles up their nose for the nth time. This would be our scientist. “So, are you still fooling around with your test tubes and pretty lights?” asks the liberal arts academic, cigarette hanging out the corner of their mouth. “If you mean, am I still investigating antiprotons using laser spectroscopy, then yes, indubitably so. How’s your fooling around with Hegel going?” replies the scientist, again pushing their glasses back up to a suitable height. The liberal arts intellectual is quick to retort the scientist’s trite remarks - they are in fact composing a Hegelian analysis of The Communist Manifesto, and not ‘fooling around’ by any means. The tension between the two self-professed intellectuals is building. The two appear to be fighting for dominance in their passive attacks on ego. So goes the age-old feud between the arts and the sciences. These two shallow characters play into the false dilemma that science and art are separate, distinct, alien. Two polar opposites. A total and unequivocal dichotomy. In all fairness, it is difficult to imagine many people will take this polarised a stance on the relationship between art and science. And now, as we delve into the complex relationship between the two domains, it should become clear that science and art are functionally interdependent (1), and considering art and science as totally separate is simply absurd. Let’s get back to our two feuding intellectuals. There seems to be much stereotypical disjunction between the two. But how does this translate to the true relationship between art and science? If the liberal arts intellectual and scientist were not so wrapped up in their self-interested ways, perhaps their gaze would slowly drift to the grandiose arches and imposing columns of the Old Quad. The harmonious form and mathematical ratios of these monuments are an enduring reminder of the architectural leaps and bounds made in the early 14th century, a blended pursuit of art and science. Ergo, we will head to one of the greatest paradigm shifts in Western history – the Renaissance. The Renaissance roughly spanned from the 14th to the 17th century and was a period of complete intellectual revolution – for both science and the arts (2). Everyone is familiar with Leonardo da Vinci, the great Renaissance artist. Less people know that he was also an inventor and a man whose artistic practice was heavily influenced by science (3). To ensure his paintings were as realistic as possible, Da Vinci dissected cadavers to better understand human anatomy, and studied optics and astronomy to perfect his use of space and form in paintings like The Last Supper. Likewise, scientists like Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei kickstarted a revolutionary paradigm shift towards the heliocentric model, their work in optics and astronomy being heavily reflected in artworks of the same era. Both science and art challenged what was for centuries prior considered the status quo. Source: Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, 1498, tempera on gesso, pitch, and mastic, 460 cm × 880 cm, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org (4). This certainly isn’t a call for readers to head to the Melbourne General Cemetery and begin digging up specimens, nor to transfer to a double degree in fine arts and biomedicine. Instead, the point is more about how fruitful interaction between the two domains can be, and how one requires the other to flourish. Returning briefly to South Lawn, the snarky liberal arts intellectual continues looking bored and takes out their copy of The Myth of Sisyphus. Sitting directly opposite them the scientist has gone back to finishing the latest New Scientist podcast and calculating a quantum theory of gravity. We have seen that science can inspire art, but how can art inspire science? “The greatest scientists are artists as well.” (5) So said perhaps the most well-known scientist of the modern century. Not only did Albert Einstein develop the special and general theory of relativity (we won’t get into the mathematical specifics for both our sakes), he was also a talented violinist and pianist. Einstein often credited his artistic side for his success in science, testifying that, "the theory of relativity occurred to me by intuition, and music is the driving force behind this intuition. My parents had me study the violin from the time I was six. My new discovery is the result of musical perception.” (6) We have already seen how science prompts art to create new visions, and Einstein was no exception. His revolutionary ideas about space and time have been acknowledged as a prime artistic influence for Picasso’s arguably infamous Cubist style, as well as for the Surrealist art movement. (7) But the arts are not just confined to visual and musical expression. How about the area of expertise of our liberal arts friends? Liberal arts as they are known today, include sociology, literature, philosophy, psychology, politics, and more. The knowledge and, most importantly, critical thinking that is learnt through humanistic education is perhaps key to the future of science. As the world changes and evolves, humans must change and evolve with it, creating innovative solutions along the way. If we shift our focus to around the 1st century BCE, we will encounter what is widely regarded as the coining of the term artes liberales, or liberal arts. Roman statesman, scholar and writer Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote extensively about a wide array of topics, from politics and education to Stoic philosophy. “Artes liberales” roughly translates to “subjects worthy of a free person” - academic study that would enable one to actively participate in society (8). This curriculum consisted of a focus on seven key disciplines of rhetoric, geometry, grammar, music, astronomy, arithmetic, and logic. Liberal arts by nature are not the antithesis of science. From the crux of the artes liberales evolved the study of mathematics, physics, philology, history, and so on. Today we have reached a point where these seven disciplines have evolved and branched out so expansively that we have lost sight of the fact that our modern-day science and arts curriculums are sown from the same seed. Both science and art stem from the real world. Simply put, science is a lens into the study of this world and the inhabitants within it. Art is another lens into this complex system, providing a different but equally valuable perspective. Life is not binary, so neither should be our approach to studying it, and by virtue studying ourselves. Now is the time to embrace such transdisciplinary thinking. We need to bridge the gap between rigorous climate science facts and currently inadequate policy making, assess the ethics of the future of gene-editing, and ultimately become better thinkers. The combined intellectual strength of analytical thinking associated with science, where we learn how to test hypotheses, interpret data and draw valid conclusions; and the arts, where we learn critical thinking, how to develop arguments, how to understand a diverse audience, is necessary to keep humanity’s head above water as our world rapidly changes. Take for example the future of the CRISPR-Cas9 editing tool. This enzyme-based tool allows scientists to remove or add sections of DNA sequence in our genome, our code for life. With this ‘hand of God’ comes great responsibility. Collaboration needs to be made between scientific thinkers and humanistic thinkers to identify what type of robust legislation needs to be implemented to ensure ethical use of this tool. It is no longer a case of scientists working in isolation in underground bunkers. Scientists are making huge strides in research that extend to and greatly impact the wider community. Cases like CRISPR-Cas9 demand a lens from science and a lens from the arts in order to see the full picture – and in this case, to ensure the ethical and safe practise of a tool that has potential to save lives and improve individuals’ quality of life – but this only happens if science and art function in harmony. So back to you, the reader. Perhaps think about enrolling in that philosophy breadth subject next semester that your liberal arts friend raves about. Pick up that popular science book you have been eyeing off at Readings on Lygon St. Listen to that science podcast that keeps popping up on your Spotify homepage (The BBC’s The Infinite Monkey Cage is excellent). Pick up that paintbrush. Go visit Science Gallery Melbourne, a recent art scene addition affiliated with University of Melbourne – how fitting! This isn’t Romeo and Juliet, where you are either a Capulet or a Montague. Rather, this is a case of wave-particle duality, where an electron is both a wave and a particle, and you are both an artist and a scientist. As the typical Melbourne wind continues to pick up and the Old Arts clocktower strikes 7:00 pm, it appears the liberal arts intellectual just swapped their copy of The Myth of Sisyphus for the scientists’ copy of Brief Answers to the Big Questions. Looks like they’re making progress. References: 1. Richmond, Sheldon. “The Interaction of Art and Science.” The MIT Press 17, no. 2 (1984): 81-86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1574993 . 2. History.com Editors. “Renaissance.” History.com. April 4, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/renaissance/renaissance . 3. Powers, Anna. “Why Art is Vital to the Study of Science.” Forbes. July 13, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/annapowers/2020/07/31/why-art-is-vital-to-the-study-of-science/?sh=7dfd8f8942eb . 4. Da Vinci, Leonardo. The Last Supper. 1498. Tempera on gesso, pitch, and mastic. 460 cm × 880 cm. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org . 5, 6. Root-Bernstein, Michelle. “Einstein On Creative Thinking: Music and the Intuitive Art of Scientific Imagination.” Psychology Today. March 31, 2010. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/imagine/201003/einstein-creative-thinking-music-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination . 7. Muldoon, Ciara. “Did Picasso know about Einstein?” Physics World. November 1, 2002. https://physicsworld.com/a/did-picasso-know-about-einstein/ . 8. Tempest, Kathryn. “Cicero’s Artes Liberales and the Liberal Arts.” Ciceronian on Line 4, no. 2 (2020): 479-500. https://doi.org/10.13135/2532-5353/5502 . Feynman, Richard, P. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. New York: Basic Books, 2005. Science Gallery Melbourne. “Inspiring and Transforming Curious Minds.” Published 2021. https://melbourne.sciencegallery.com/what-we-do . White, Fiona. “Why art and science are better together.” The University of Sydney News. September 17, 2020. https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/news-and-events/2020/09/17/arts-and-science-better-together.html .

< Back to Issue 8 Microbic Mirror of The Self by Sarah Ibrahimi 3 June 2025 Edited by Jax Soon-Legaspi Illustrated by Noah Chen For decades, we did not fully understand the functional purposes of many parts of the human body. The spleen was once thought of as dispensable, earwax merely as dirty waste and the appendix as a useless leftover from the course of human evolution. But science has a habit of humbling us and we now know that all of these components serve essential purposes in the human body. Our understanding of the gut microbiome is following a similar pattern. However, beyond knowing that it plays a role, we still lack a full understanding of the true nature and mechanisms of this mysterious system. Given the average person's current understanding of microbes, it is unsurprising that they are often associated with disease, capable of causing some of the most deadly disorders. They are thought of as a foreign figure entirely and that should remain separate from us. Nevertheless, just like their occupation all over our skin, our gut is home to them too. When we think of our own identities, we tend to boil ourselves down to a singular body, a singular self. Typically, we define ourselves by our jobs, the activities we enjoy and the values we admire - elements all tied to a single individual. Yet, within us lives an entire biosphere that hosts a whole community of microbes. These minute beings govern our guts in symbiosis with other systems of the human body and outnumber human cells ten to one (1). It is a wonder how we are home to trillions of bacteria and are barely conscious of their existence. How do these seemingly fatal organisms operate cooperatively with the body? Can we construe the self as a singular individual when our body is a complex community with seemingly precarious organisms living within us? “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us” - Ralph Waldo Emerson The community that is composed of bacteria, fungi, viruses and archaea plays a significant role in many aspects of our lives, affecting the way we digest food down to the regulation of our mental health. We understand the digestive system to be composed of the mouth, stomach, intestines and other vital organs as the main drivers of digestion. Similarly, the immune system depends on the bone marrow, spleen, white blood cells and antibodies to suppress an infection. Yet, the microbes sequestered within our gut assist extensively in driving the actions associated with these systems. In digestion, the range of their skill extends from the ability to synthesise vitamin K to using cross-feeding mechanisms - a phenomena where one bacterium breaks down parts of plant compounds and passes the byproducts to others, resulting in boosted health (2,3). They have also been shown to promote gut barrier integrity to prevent the entry of harmful pathogens, while also aiding in regulating immune system homeostasis, assisting the body in blocking harmful pathogens and enabling a strengthened immune response in the face of infection (3). Although there has been extensive research conducted to investigate the role of gut microbes in our physical health, their effects on our mental health have often been overlooked. Yet, they play a fundamental role in its regulation and the promotion of positive wellbeing. This contribution is most evident in the context of the gut-brain axis, which consists of two-way signalling between the central nervous system and enteric nervous system, serving the emotional and cognitive domains of the brain. Working hand-in-hand, the mental state of an individual can cause harmful alterations to the composition of healthy gut microbes and in a reciprocal manner, a dysregulated gut flora can adversely affect the brain through pathways such as immune activation and the production of neuroactive substances (4). Such imbalances in the gut microbiota have been linked to the emergence of depressive-like behaviours (5), though there is an increased prevalence of other psychiatric disorders like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and anxiety that occur as a result too (6). The last decade of science has demonstrated a dramatic increase in the understanding of the gut microbiome as we know it today. Like in any field however, there is still more to be discovered. Similar to the infamous genome-wide association studies that assist in the recognition of certain genetic markers to particular diseases or traits through a statistical basis, metagenome-wide association studies are being conducted to identify associations with microbiome structures and several major diseases (7). Research in this field has already allowed for the detection of shifts in gut compositions and how these changes functionally contribute to many metabolic diseases. However, small sample sizes for such research highlight the requirement for greater development within the field. “The self is not something ready-made, but something in continuous formation through choice of action” - John Dewey The human body has a mutual relationship with the gut microbiome, like that of the gut-brain axis. So when one of these systems is not functioning at its peak, the performance of the other is also derailed. Dysbiosis of the gut's natural flora contributes to clinical conditions such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and anxiety (4). However, microbial imbalance is mediated through the actions and behaviours of the individual at hand. Both chronic and acute stressors can increase gut barrier permeability, resulting in a “leaky” gut, allowing bacteria to seep into the cracks and trigger an array of physiological responses like inflammation. It is safe to say that there is no single, definitive state that our individual guts exist in. In a world driven by antimicrobial usage, fluctuating diets and the invisible weight of daily stress, the gut microbiome remains in a state of constant transformation. Ever-changing, they mirror the conscious and unconscious choices we make, ultimately shaping our health in ways we are only beginning to imagine. References National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2025 Jun 1]. NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body. Available from: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body Mueller C, Macpherson AJ. Layers of mutualism with commensal bacteria protect us from intestinal inflammation. 2006 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Jun 1]; Available from: https://gut.bmj.com/content/55/2/276 Zhang YJ, Li S, Gan RY, Zhou T, Xu DP, Li HB. Impacts of Gut Bacteria on Human Health and Diseases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2015 Apr;16(4):7493–519. Carabotti M, Scirocco A, Maselli MA, Severi C. The gut-brain axis: interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems. Ann Gastroenterol. 2015;28(2):203–9. Bested AC, Logan AC, Selhub EM. Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part I – autointoxication revisited. Gut Pathogens. 2013 Mar 18;5(1):5. Nikolova VL, Smith MRB, Hall LJ, Cleare AJ, Stone JM, Young AH. Perturbations in Gut Microbiota Composition in Psychiatric Disorders: A Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Dec 1;78(12):1343–54. Wang J, Jia H. Metagenome-wide association studies: fine-mining the microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016 Aug;14(8):508–22. Previous article Next article Enigma back to

< Back to Issue 5 Griefbots: A New Way to Grieve (or Not) Akanksha Agarwal 24 October 2023 Edited by Celina Kumala Illustrated by Louise Cen Trigger warning: This article mentions themes of death or dying. If at any point the content is distressing, please reach out for support via Griefline or refer to the services listed at the end of this article. Rumi once wrote, ‘Anything you lose comes round in another form.’ (Goodreads, n.d., p. 1). There are many ritualistic ways to memorialise the death of a loved one, but what if they had never “died”? Over the past decade, the intersection of technology and mental health has given rise to innovative solutions for various psychological conditions. From virtual reality therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (Kothgassner et al., 2019) to prescription video games aimed at helping children manage Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Tiitto & Lodder, 2017), the mental health technology industry has expanded significantly. Enter, a recent addition to this landscape - the grief bot. In 2015, Roman Mazurenko, an entrepreneur and prominent figure in Moscow’s night-life scene, suddenly passed away from a fatal car accident (Newton, 2016). His close friend, Eugenia Kuyda, proceeded to create a “digital monument” in his memory (Newton, 2016). While grieving, she found herself re-reading all his old messages, feeling nostalgic at Roman’s unique word choices, and spelling. Kuyda had previously founded a startup involving artificially intelligent chat bots. After the incident, she fed her bot with Roman’s text exchanges. The bot then adopted Roman’s speech pattern, enabling her to chat with a version of him. This marked the birth of the griefbots, or chat bots programmed using digital remains (emails, text messages, social media posts) of a deceased individual to support their grieving loved ones. In other words, using natural language processing, these bots are able to mimic conversational patterns using the data of the deceased. Are these conversational patterns accurate? How then, does this impact the way we grieve? Should we even be using griefbots? To answer these, we could attempt to understand grief. Grief is a complex emotion. You could be grieving the loss of a loved one, a relationship, an object, or even an abstract idea (e.g. familiarity). Grief can also manifest at different times for each individual. According to the Australian Psychological Society ‘grief is the natural response to loss and can influence the physical, emotional, cognitive, behavioural and spiritual aspects of our lives.’ (APS, n.d, p. 1). In their book, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and David Kessel (2014) coined ‘The Five Stages of Grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Essentially, the model suggests an initial reaction of symbolic denial or shock. Following this is typically a phase of emotional support through vocalising the experience or making meaning. The final stage being acceptance, or moving forward. “Are they really gone?” Denial is viewed as a protective mechanism to meet the psyche where it is. “Why me?” Anger is interestingly framed as an anchor to connect you to someone you’ve lost. “What if they suddenly return?” Bargaining shifts from the past to the future, until the truth sinks in. “What’s the point?” Depression is protecting the nervous system from overload, and is arguably natural to grief, when not clinical. “I lost them, but I am going to be okay.” Acceptance as you start to move forward, with some stability. Now, each of these questions might manifest in different ways, and require different coping mechanisms. However, they do give us an indication of generic phases across unique manifestations of grief. In other words, these are not linear, clear-cut stages, rather, there is an element of individuality in the way we experience each stage. We might experience one stage before another, or circle back, or take a completely new route. In any case, this is one way to make sense of grief. Other theories around grief include Bowlby’s attachment theory (1980) which suggests that our response to losing someone is coded in the way our attachments develop. Silverman and Klass (1996) put forth the idea of continuing bonds, where the meaning of loss changes with the deceased living on in memory. On the other hand, Strobe and Schut (1999) posit a dual process with individuals constantly switching from avoidance or confrontation of loss. Regardless of your theoretical inclinations, chances are that one might seek closure, a sense of reconciliation or even self-fulfilment after experiencing loss. What, then, would be the wellbeing impacts of artificial chat bots, that are designed to adopt the language patterns of those we have lost, on the grieving process? Grief can result in cognitive changes, such as confusion, identity disturbances, dysphoria, and yearning among others (Bonnano & Kaltman, 2001). Norlock (2016) proposes that imaginal relationships with the deceased can reflect relational value, ethical behaviour (such as forgiveness), and relationship maintenance. Furthermore, it is argued that continued internal representations of people who have passed away might also add value to future relationships. In contrast, some may argue that interacting with an artificial grief bot might engender para-social relationships where the user is investing time into a relationship (Vost & Kamp, 2022); however, the receipt is unaware (similar to celebrities and their fans). Furthermore, anthropomorphising a non-living chatbot, and conflating this for a person might distort reality, take wrongful advice, delay grief, or fabricate new false memories (Vost & Kamp, 2022). It leads one to wonder, just what are the potential ethical issues surrounding griefbots? Data is impermanent, with the ability to be wiped (Grandinetti et al., 2020). Data is deeply contextual, contingent, and unstable (Grandinetti et al., 2020). In order to understand how the bot is responding, ensuring no advice is given, and also preserving the griever’s best interest, is a complex task. Moreover, viewing griefbots as permanent or true representations of the dead is another issue. There are also ethical questions around consent and whether the deceased are capable of giving consent to the usage of their data, along with users. Whether companies can be transparent about how the data is being handled, and the algorithms generated, remains unclear. Would knowing how the responses were generated changed the way people viewed grief bots, and would that defeat the purpose? Yet, there are broader challenges. If users disclose private information to profit-driven companies based on the trust with the person they have lost, the data could be misused. The role of protection plans in the event of deep fakers or hackers, becomes paramount. The large amount of data used also raises questions about the sustainability of such bots. Additionally, the high cost of sophisticated bots might create greater disparities in access to support. While autonomy may improve with access to immediate technology, the addictive interaction patterns could lead to dependence, overuse, and potentially social withdrawal. Furthermore, gender, age, sensitive content, changing political landscapes, might potentially bias the bot inherently. Griefbots remain a hotly contested topic, with widespread caution surrounding potential impacts. There have been attempts to design similar bots with ethical features in mind, and even suggestions to medically regulate or test such devices. However, this use for AI bots opens up a multitude of questions. By 2025, Vorst and Kamp (2022) speculate that holographic avatars could be generated through photographs, physical and digital remnants, even voice recordings. Ultimately, the impact of griefbots on our perception of mortality and memory challenges us to reconsider the boundaries of life, death, and the enduring essence of human connection in a digital age. Support resources If you are experiencing prolonged symptoms of grief or depression, please seek support via the following resources with different options for support: Grief Australia: counselling services, support groups, app https://www.grief.org.au/ga/ga/Get-Support.aspx?hkey=2876868e-8666-4ed2-a6a5-3d0ee6e86c30 Griefline: free telephone support, community forum and support groups https://griefline.org.au/ Better Health Channel: coping strategies, list of support services, education on grief https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/servicesandsupport/grief Beyond Blue: understanding grief, resources, support, counselling https://www.beyondblue.org.au/mental-health/grief-and-loss Lifeline: real stories, techniques & strategies, apps & tools, support guides, interactive https://toolkit.lifeline.org.au/topics/grief-loss/what-is-grief?gclid=CjwKCAjw-KipBhBtEiwAWjgwrE1pJaaBabh3pT_UR0PlVBZTFMEA26NVJe2ue8sqCF0BLg2rMI4i2xoCp5IQAvD_BwE Reach Out Australia: coping strategies https://au.reachout.com/articles/working-through-grief?gclid=CjwKCAjw-KipBhBtEiwAWjgwrKXLb9w-wXXVLIbhZDkPumIF6ebe-0Pk77Hv7-cK4dLDrHJxCRkyRBoC2B4QAvD_BwE Find a Helpline: for international/country-specific helplines https://findahelpline.com/ This list is not exhaustive, please refer to your area’s specific services for additional support. References Albert, S., & Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 44(1), 248. https://doi.org/10.2307/351282 APS. (n.d.). Grief | APS . Australian Psychological Society | APS. https://psychology.org.au/for-the-public/psychology-topics/grief Basom, J. (2021, May 19). The ethical, social, and political implications of “Griefbots”. Medium . https://jonathanb108.medium.com/the-ethical-social-and-political-implications-of-griefbots-48780fd1d1c2 Bonanno, G. A., & Kaltman, S. (2001). The varieties of grief experience . Clinical Psychology Review , 21(5), 705-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(00)00062-3 Craytor, J. K., & Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. The American Journal of Nursing , 69(12), 2710. https://doi.org/10.2307/3421124 Elder, A. (2019). Conversation from beyond the grave? A Neo‐confucian ethics of chatbots of the dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 37(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12369 Goodreads. (n.d.). A quote by Rumi . Goodreads | Meet your next favorite book. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/32062-don-t-grieve-anything-you-lose-comes-round-in-another-form Grandinetti, J., DeAtley, T., & Bruinsma, J. (2020). The dead speak: Big data and digitally mediated death . AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research . https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2020i0.11122 Jiménez-Alonso, B., & De Luna, I. B. (2022). Correction to: Griefbots. A new way of communicating with the dead? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09687-3 Klass, D. (2021). The sociology of continuing bonds. Culture, Consolation, and Continuing Bonds in Bereavement, 113-128. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003243564-11 Kothgassner, O. D., Goreis, A., Kafka, J. X., Van Eickels, R. L., Plener, P. L., & Felnhofer, A. (2019). Virtual reality exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1654782 Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2014). On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. Simon & Schuster. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0TltiT8Y9CYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=grief+&ots=S1j1XyF91N&sig=pDnxX-bJQIJIFeX074oGrHRD0Ms&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grief&f=false Lindemann, N. F. (2022). The ethics of ‘Deathbots’ . Science and Engineering Ethics , 28(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00417-x Newton, C. (2016, October 6). When her best friend died, she used artificial intelligence to keep talking to him . TheVerge.com . https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot Norlock, K. J. (2016). Real (and) imaginal relationships with the dead. The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51(2), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-016-9573-6 Santa Clara University. (n.d.). AI, death, and mourning . https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/ai-death-and-mourning/ Schut, M. S. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies , 23(3), 197-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811899201046 Shardlow, J. (2022). Temporal perspectives and the phenomenology of grief. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00659-5 Tiitto, M. V., & Lodder, R. A. (2017). Therapeutic Video Games for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) . WebmedCentral , 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.26.355990 Van der Vorst, R., & Kamp, J. M. (2022). 12. Designing a griefbot-for-good . Moral design and technology, 215-241. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-922-0_12 Wicked back to

< Back to Issue 6 Hidden in Plain Sight: The dangerous chemicals in our everyday products by Kara Miwa-Dale 28 May 2024 Edited by Zeinab Jishi Illustrated by Semko van de Wolfshaar Water bottles, lipsticks, receipts, and tinned food cans. Have you ever considered what may be lurking in these seemingly harmless daily essentials? These items all contain bisphenol A (BPA), a common endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC). EDCs are chemicals that mimic or interfere with the endocrine system, which is responsible for producing and releasing hormones that regulate important processes in the body such as growth, metabolism, and reproduction (The Endocrine Society & IPEN, 2024). Upon being released into the bloodstream, hormones travel to their target tissues and organs, where they influence key biological functions. Hormones have specific receptors on their surface which bind to matching receptors on their target tissue. The endocrine system is an incredible feat of nature. It creates widespread and long-lasting changes throughout the body via an intricately controlled web of interactions between tiny molecules. However, a small change can be enough to tip this finely regulated balance into disarray. BPA is a type of bisphenol, which is one class among many other types of EDCs, such as phthalates, perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). BPA has a similar chemical structure to oestrogen, an important hormone involved in both male and female reproductive systems. This enables BPA to ‘mimic’ oestrogen; essentially tricking oestrogen receptors into activating in the absence of oestrogen. BPA is known to cause a wide range of negative health impacts, such as reproductive, metabolic, and neurological issues (The Endocrine Society & IPEN, 2024). But don’t just take my word for it. The toxicity of BPA has been debated over many decades, ever since it was first linked to health issues in the 1970s. It has been challenging to generate evidence relating to the toxicity of BPA, given the ethical concerns of deliberately exposing people to EDCs. As a result, scientists have mainly used animal models, alongside studies examining the correlation between EDC exposure and disease, to investigate the action of BPA. Research strongly indicates that elevated exposure to BPA is correlated with poorer egg quality and higher miscarriage rates in women, alongside a reduction in sperm count in men (Matuszczak et al., 2019). BPA is also a known obesogen (a hormone which disrupts metabolism, increasing risk for obesity), supported by a recent study indicating the odds of adult obesity rise by 15% for every 1 nanogram/mL increase in the concentration of their urinary BPA (Wu et al., 2020). Even more concerningly, BPA has been found to have epigenetic effects, which are heritable chemical modifications to DNA which regulate how genes are turned on and off. Scientists were able to demonstrate these epigenetic effects by exposing rats to BPA and allowing them to breed for multiple generations. In this study, rates of obesity and reproductive disease were increased in all subsequent generations of rats, despite only the first generation being directly exposed to BPA (Manikkam et al. 2013). Considering that BPA has been used commercially since the 1950s, it is probable that these epigenetic effects have been compounding in humans with each passing generation. Without intervention, the consequences of ongoing BPA exposure are likely to intensify. It is deeply concerning that BPA remains ubiquitous in the community, with more than 7 million tonnes produced each year (Manzoor et al., 2022). Given its presence in a multitude of everyday products, BPA exposure is essentially impossible to avoid. Detectable levels of BPA are present in nearly all children and adults, and even developing foetuses (Calafat et al., 2004). Mounting evidence for the toxicity of BPA is prompting scientists to call for greater measures in preventing harmful exposure to BPA and other EDCs. What is being done by policy makers to address this issue? I sat down with A/Prof Mark Green, an Associate Professor in Reproductive Biology at the University of Melbourne, to discuss the current research around EDCs and the measures that can be taken to protect the public from their damaging effects. Are BPA-free labels just illusions of safety? There has been a shift towards manufacturing products labelled ‘BPA-free’, such as BPA-free water bottles. This sounds great on the surface: purchase the ‘BPA-free’ water bottle and sleep well knowing that you’re taking proactive action to protect your health. Unfortunately, these efforts may be in vain. As companies manufacturing EDC-containing items have a vested interest in their products being approved as safe, many of these ‘BPA-free’ products are simply being replaced with other bisphenols (e.g. bisphenol F, or BPF), which are suspected to have similar or even worse effects compared to BPA (Wiklund & Beronius, 2022). Fortunately, some countries have started looking towards more holistic ways of regulating suspected EDCs, as noted by A/Prof Green: ‘A positive step forward is that the USA and EU are starting to think about regulating whole classes of chemicals, rather than individual chemicals.’ Introducing this new approach will help to ensure that manufacturers can’t simply switch to a similar (but unregulated) chemical when one is banned. Redefining toxicity: Does the dose make the poison? Another key issue is the current way that EDCs are evaluated for toxicity. A historical principle of toxicology (which has later been challenged) is the idea that ‘the dose makes the poison’. This theory proposes that substances with ‘toxic’ properties only cause us harm if we are exposed to a certain ‘threshold’ amount. In other words, if someone is exposed to five times the amount of a chemical, they will observe five times as much of an effect on their health. However, scientists have found that many EDCs don’t behave in this way. There are some instances where lower doses may, in fact, lead to more severe effects. As A/Prof Green aptly puts, there may be no such thing as a ‘safe dose’ for some EDCs. Blind spots in EDC regulatory testing: Are vulnerable populations overlooked? Regulatory testing procedures often underestimate the negative impact of EDCs by disregarding how hormones affect people differently throughout the lifespan. Embryonic development is a critical period in which exposure to EDCs can have disproportionately large impacts on health compared to exposure in adults. Choi and colleagues (2016) studied the consequences of BPA exposure on developing cattle embryos and observed that even short-term exposure had concerning repercussions on their development and metabolism. Nost testing procedures fail to take these endpoint measures into account. A/Prof Green pointed to examples of toxicology testing in which ‘rates of death and tumours in adult male rats were used as an end point measure to define toxicity, which had nothing to do with more subtle effects on reproduction’. Context matters: Navigating EDC regulation in the real world Another factor to consider is that these individual EDCs don’t exist in a vacuum; the reality is that we are exposed to a ‘soup’ of many different chemicals every day. A/Prof Green noted the inefficiency of testing individual chemicals for endocrine-disrupting properties: ‘Historically a lot of these EDCs have been studied individually, but we don’t know what happens with all the different compounds when they go together, and which combinations are worse. Investigating EDC mixtures is a big gap of knowledge.’ In isolation, small doses of EDCs may not result in any adverse impacts on human health. That said, the interaction of many EDCs may have severe consequences (Conley et al., 2021). These interactions may explain the conflicting evidence surrounding EDCs, where some studies reveal significant effects and others do not. A/Prof Green is currently investigating the impacts of EDC mixtures on human health in relation to the ‘exposome’, which is the cumulative effect of the environmental exposures we encounter throughout our lives (e.g. chemicals, air pollutants, radiation, food). He hopes that a better understanding of these complex interactions will allow us to make more informed decisions about how to regulate EDCs. Paving the path towards a healthier future Unfortunately, the economic interests of companies producing EDC-containing products compete with the implementation of necessary policies. Given the suspected epigenetic effects of EDCs like BPA, taking a more cautious but proactive approach in regulating EDCs seems to be a wise course of action. The burden created by EDCs is huge, with attributable annual disease costs estimated to be $340 billion USD in the USA, and $217 billion USD in the EU (Malits et al., 2022). What can we do as consumers? Are we resigned to bathing in a cocktail of EDCs, awaiting our descent into a dystopian nightmare reminiscent of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’? Despite the disheartening reality of EDCs, there is room for hope. Scientists are working hard to find safer alternatives to materials containing EDCs, and a growing number of chemicals are facing bans or stricter regulation. The first step in mitigating the negative consequence of these chemicals is increasing awareness about EDCs and reducing our personal exposure to them. Here are 5 tips from A/Prof Green that can help you to avoid unnecessary exposure to EDCs: 1. Don’t drink from plastic water bottles, especially if they have been left in a hot environment. 2. Don’t reheat food in plastic containers - use a microwave-safe bowl or plate instead. When storing leftover food, let it cool before transferring to plastic containers. 3. Try to reduce consumption of tinned foods, as these are lined with plastic resins. 4. Avoid handling receipts, as these are covered in BPA. 5. Ventilate your home and avoid perfumes or sprays with strong smells – these often contain EDCs. To encourage governments and industrial regulators to enforce stronger legislation and tighter controls on EDCs, it is essential to empower consumers and advance scientific research. While our direct influence on policy decisions may be limited, as consumers, we possess the power to drive positive change, promoting public health not only in the present but for generations to come. For some more information, check out these great resources about EDCs: https://www.yourfertility.org.au/everyone/drugs-chemicals https://endocrinedisruption.org/ https://www.ewg.org/ References Calafat, A. M., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, J. A., Caudill, S. P., Ekong, J., & Needham, L. L. (2005). Urinary concentrations of bisphenol A and 4-nonylphenol in a human reference population. Environmental Health Perspectives , 113 (4), 391-395. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7534 Choi, B. I., Harvey, A. J., & Green, M. P. (2016). Bisphenol A affects early bovine embryo development and metabolism that is negated by an oestrogen receptor inhibitor. Scientific Reports , 6 (1), 29318. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29318 Conley, J. M., Lambright, C. S., Evans, N., Cardon, M., Medlock-Kakaley, E., Wilson, V. S., & Gray Jr, L. E. (2021). A mixture of 15 phthalates and pesticides below individual chemical no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) produces reproductive tract malformations in the male rat. Environment International , 156 , 106615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106615 Gore, A.C., La Merrill, M.A., Patisaul, H.B., and Sargis, R. (2024). Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health. The Endocrine Society and IPEN. https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/edc_report-2024-final-compressed.pdf Malits, J., Naidu, M., & Trasande, L. (2022). Exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in Canada: population-based estimates of disease burden and economic costs. Toxics , 10 (3), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10030146 Manikkam, M., Tracey, R., Guerrero-Bosagna, C., & Skinner, M. K. (2013). Plastics derived endocrine disruptors (BPA, DEHP and DBP) induce epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity, reproductive disease and sperm epimutations. PloS One , 8 (1), e55387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055387 Manzoor, M. F., Tariq, T., Fatima, B., Sahra, A., Tariq, F., Munir, S., Khan, S., Ranhja, M. M. A. N., Sameen, A., Zeng, X., & Ibrahim, S.A. (2022). An insight into bisphenol A, food exposure and its adverse effects on health: A review. Frontiers in Nutrition , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1047827 Matuszczak, E., Komarowska, M. D., Debek, W., & Hermanowicz, A. (2019). The impact of bisphenol A on fertility, reproductive system, and development: a review of the literature. International Journal of Endocrinology , 2019 . https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4068717 Wu, W., Li, M., Liu, A., Wu, C., Li, D., Deng, Q., Zhang, B., Du, J., Gao, X., & Hong, Y. (2020). Bisphenol A and the risk of obesity a systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence. Dose-Response , 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325820916949 Previous article Next article Elemental back to

By Julia Lockerd Meet the New Kid By Julia Lockerd 23 March 2022 Edited by Caitlin Kane Illustrated by Quynh Anh Nguyen ‘Machines Enrol in Art Class!’ The title of the American Scientist article (1) I’m currently reading is droll take on the process of artificial intelligence (AI) learning. I imagine the first art class I ever attended had a robot classmate. “I want everyone to be very welcoming to our new student! Class this is DALL-E.” DALL-E’s name is a clever blend of surrealist painter Salvador Dali and robot character WALL-E. It is the most popular AI art platform in the world, as well as the face of a quickly expanding industry. The purpose of DALL-E is evident in its namesakes: simply, it is a robot that creates art. Artificial intelligence is described as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines (2).” More specifically “machines that think like humans.” AI art is an application of this wider machine learning. In short, it is art created by a “thinking” computer. In mid-2022 the world of AI art became a monster of industry, with AI art platform Midjourney reporting over 12 million users since its launch in July 2022 (4). However, as with any quick advancement in technology, there are issues that come with the new power we’ve been given; there is a question we must ask ourselves: how far is too far? Back in art class, other students and I share uneasy glances as our strange companion clicks and whirrs behind his desk. I smile at him and reach out a hand. He breaks my finger and steals my Snoopy drawing right off my desk. Ouch. This is the first impression many artists had when AI art was first introduced. For years we had been told that truck drivers, factory workers and other industry roles would be fully automated in the future. This was an issue in itself, but an inevitability as the wheels of advancement turned over. Few expected that the creative industries would so quickly slip under the control of automated technology. With AI on the rise, many artists fear for their livelihoods, job prospects and their intellectual and creative property. To both create and vet the art for our personal viewing experience, AI uses tools called Generative Adversarial Networks (5). Imagine two little robots hunched over side-by-side desks. One’s job is to create images and fool the other into believing its art is original. If the second robot is fooled half the time, the first is performing as it should, creating art the public will believe is genuine. Fool me once. The definition of “genuine” art is vague at best and still under heavy debate. I believe that “genuine” is a feeling you get when you look at the art in front of you. It’s up to you to decide, can AI art ever really be genuine? Another issue arises from AI art: usually when you go to an art class, the teacher knows they’re teaching. My robot classmate begins to shuffle through its filing cabinet of pre-existing works made by humans. It’s been fed these images, paintings, photographs and learnt to reassemble the input as AI-created art (1,6,7). I can’t help but bristle in contempt as he examines my sketch of Snoopy and adds it to the ever-growing collection of “borrowed” art. As public use of AI continues to rise, we will inevitably have more ethically grey tundra to cross. In 2018 the Portrait of Edmund Belamy, sold for 432,500 USD at Christie’s Auction house. The controversy surrounding the piece stems from the fact that it was painted by an AI that had been fed 15,000 portraits from 20th century artists (7). Edmond De Belamy is not a real person, nor is the person who painted his portrait. Both are simply amalgamations of the people who came before. Which begs the questions, who deserves to be rewarded for this artistic feat? Is this painting even original? Once upon a time it was something genuine; it is up to us to decide how many times we can take the derivative of a piece of art before it loses its emotion. Or is it simply always the case that every artist takes inspiration from those who came before? When each creation is the derivative of a piece, it’s critical to examine what it’s deriving from. It is both fascinating and alarming that social biases have even made their way into the creative and malleable minds of machines. Dark-skinned people and hijab wearers have taken to social media to report their selfies, which they had run through an AI software, had returned distorted, warped or whitewashed (8). AI learns from the dataset that its human trainers provide, and it's important that we consider who and what are represented in that training. It is a strange sort of embarrassment to know that these machines and their endless learning have picked up on our shortcomings. In a world that already rejects difference and shame people for their deviation from unachievable standards, we have taught machines to do the same. Like a child passively taking up its parents' opinions. In this way, some consequences of our technological development aren’t so much AI art issues as they are societal issues. The only fix is to work to include and recognise all people in creative spaces so that machines can learn to think like all humans. Despite criticism and philosophising, we cannot stop the march of progress. AI will continue to advance, to become better at thinking and emulating us. Perhaps our responsibility will just be to give them something good to copy. As for traditional artists left behind by the AI advance? I believe we’ll be okay. We differ from machines, and there will always be something more rewarding than just an output. The joy is in the creation, the connection, and the humanity of art. Half of my art class is robots now, churning out hundreds of creations per second. I hold up a half-finished picture to my desk mate to see their smile. That moment of connection is why it’s worth staying until the end of the class. References Elgammal A. AI Is Blurring the Definition of Artist [Internet]. American Scientist. 2019. Available from: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist McCarthy J. What is AI? [Internet]. Stanford.edu. 2012. Available from: http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/whatisai.html Midjourney Discord Interface [Internet]. docs.midjourney.com. Available from: https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/midjourney-discord Hughes RT, Zhu L, Bednarz T. Generative Adversarial Networks–Enabled Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaborative Applications for Creative and Design Industries: A Systematic Review of Current Approaches and Trends. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2021 Apr 28;4. Goodyear S. Why those AI-generated portraits all over social media have artists on edge [Internet]. CBC. 2022. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/artificial-intelligence-ai-art-ethics-greg-rutkowski-1.6679466 Christie's. Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium [Internet]. Christies.com. Christies; 2018. Available from: https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx GANs. Edmond De Belamy, From La Famille de Belamy [Internet]. Caselles-Dupré H, Fautrel P, Vernier G, editors. original gilded wood frame. 2018. Available from: https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-edmond-de-belamy-from-la-famille-de-6166184/?from=salesummery&intobjectid=6166184&sid=18abf70b-239c-41f7-bf78-99c5a4370bc7 AI selfies — and their critics — are taking the internet by storm. Washington Post [Internet]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/08/lensa-ai-portraits/ Previous article Next article

By Monica Blasioli < Back to Issue 3 The Ethics of Space Travel By Monica Blasioli 10 September 2022 Edited by Yvette Marris and Tanya Kovacevic Illustrated by Aisyah Md Sulhanuddin Next "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Even without a hyphen next to that quote, people around the world will recognise it. The mere sentence can bring forth a flurry of emotions and thoughts - national pride, curiosity, nervousness, and even scepticism - but most will recognise them as the first words spoken by Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, in July of 1969. Despite this, there are deeper considerations that need to be taken when discussing space travel than what first meets the eye. Just like on Earth, there are a number of health and environmental implications that should not be ignored in the flurry of excitement to explore the wonders of space. Not only are passenger safety and climate change areas of concern, particularly with constant and normalised space travel, but so are the ethics of monetising from experiences that can inflict so much damage. First and foremost, space exploration can foster communication and cooperation between countries. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an independent branch of the US federal government, involves countries such as Australia, Italy, Russia, France and Germany. NASA prides themselves on their international cooperation, celebrating their achievements in bringing together a global community of scientists to collaborate on space research and communication. And this is truly the reality! For over 64 years, NASA has successfully commercialised off the excitement surrounding space exploration, creating jobs across the globe (and in space), and sparking interest in science internationally through captivating space images, educational programs and videos, and even a clothing range at H&M! In particular, collaborative work and research conducted at the International Space Station (ISS) has been a major benefit to humans. Despite not even being on Earth itself, it has deepened the understanding of our home planet. Research has revealed how the human body reacts to increased exposure to radiation and how plants grow in space, enabling a better awareness of how plants grow on Earth, as well as how chemicals and materials react to low-gravity environments. In fact, without space research, we wouldn’t be able to comprehend some things we take for granted on Earth. For example, how the moon impacts the tides and how long a day lasts (and also what your personality traits are, if you buy into that stuff). However, there is always a dark side to the moon. The normalisation of space travel through its commercialisation could have devastating environmental impacts. On July 20 2021, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos took off to space in his New Shepard rocket, built by his own company, Blue Origin. For ten minutes and ten seconds. Bezos and his company celebrated this moment as the beginning of their vision for a future where space travel, along with citizens living and working in space, is normalised - and, of course, commercialised by his company. While we congratulate Bezos and his team, can we really rejoice in Bezos’ vision for the future knowing that the impacts for those back at home could be deadly? A 2010 study using a global climate model found that 1000 launches of suborbital rockets each year would produce enough carbon to change polar ozones by 6%, increase the temperature over the poles by one degree Celsius, and reduce polar sea ice levels by 5%. (1). And of course, the rockets could contribute to climate change. The vast amount of soot produced by spaceships yields the potential to further break down the Earth’s atmosphere, and more worryingly, even begin to break down the current untouched outer layers (2). Once again, these impacts make it difficult to justify Bezos’ plans to make paying for space travel a ‘norm’ in our lives. The precise impacts of this may be unknown, however, Karen Rosenlof, senior scientist from the Chemical Sciences Laboratory in the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warns that releasing pollutants into spaces they have never been before never has positive outcomes (2). There seems to be little concern by Bezos about these effects and too much concern on monopolising from the endeavours instead. And this is only the beginning - the potential health disasters could be even worse. Just like Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence in Passengers, we are not immune to a potential space-based disaster. For over 50 years, NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) has been researching the impacts of space travel on humans - and trying to decrease the impacts on their astronauts. Many space radiation particles are more deadly than those on Earth, and more difficult to be shielded from, increasing the chance of cancer and degenerative diseases, such as cataracts (3). The usual radiation protective measures do not hold up, particularly when travelling further distances from Earth, to a planet like Mars, where the radiation exists at higher, deadlier levels (3). In fact, on a trip to Mars, three different gravity fields would be encountered, and passengers would need to readjust to Earth’s gravity when returning (3). This damages spatial orientation, coordination and balance, as well as causing acute space motion sickness in travellers, which can lead to chronic conditions (3). All in all, this is still only the beginning of space travel and the research surrounding it. There are still - quite literally - galaxies of information that still need to be uncovered, meaning humans don’t have all the answers yet. This reach to the stars may blind us to issues later down the line which still lack research - long term exposure to radiation, prolonged consumption of dehydrated “space” food, the change in gravity, and how all of these cumulatively will interact in the long term… the list goes on and on. Are further endeavours into space worth the impacts on our world and fellow humans alike? And all to further line the pockets already filled with billions of dollars? References 1. Ross M, Mills M, Toohey D. Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets. Geophysical Research Letters. 2010 December 28;37(24):1-5. 2. Pultarova S. The rise of space tourism could affect Earth's climate in unforeseen ways, scientists worry [Internet]. 2021 July 26. Available from: https://www.space.com/environmental-impact-space-tourism-flights 3. Abadie L, Cranford N, Lloyd C, Shelhamer M, Turner J. The Human Body in Space; 2021 February 3 [updated 2022 February 24]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyinspace/ Previous article Next article alien back to

< Back to Issue 2 Mastering Chaos with Pen and Paper The mathematical laws which govern our chaotic and complex universe have found special use in describing the rapidly changing global climate. The work of three research scientists, with backgrounds in physics and meteorology, offered crucial insight into models describing the chaotic processes of climate change, granting them the 2021 Physics Nobel Prize. by Xen Papailiadis 10 December 2021 Edited by Mia Horsfall & Katherine Tweedie Illustrated by Jess Nguyen The world in which we live is densely packed with randomness and disorder. From the stampede of pedestrians navigating a major intersection and meshing together at the zebra crossing, to a flock of blackbirds hovering above like a shapeless dark cloud. All seems random and without any sense of pattern. However, at a very fundamental level, all of these processes can be described by logic and equations; as once remarked by Galileo, “the order of the natural world is written in the language of mathematics”. Through the tireless efforts of natural scientists from across the world, over millennia we have developed a remarkable understanding of the nature of the physical world. At the atomic scale of quantum physics right up to the largest astronomical objects in our universe, physics can both describe the present and decisively predict the future and past of a system. This is all with a pinch of salt, of course, as we run into some serious issues where probability and uncertainty takes over at the quantum level (best saved for another feature article), however, by and large we are capable of determining how a rocket will launch into space and where it will land on dry land, thanks to this deterministic tool. This may seem like the end of the story, however, Mother Nature will not dispel all her secrets at once. In the past century, scientists studying random behaviour, such as how clouds move and disperse or how the small fluctuations in the stock market can be tracked, have been at a loss applying deterministic methods (i.e. methods where we can determine or predict the outcome from a few fixed starting conditions) to these systems. There seemed to be no way to accurately predict the evolution of the system through time. This began with the likes of Poincare fruitlessly predicting the future movement of the planets in our solar system at the request of a monarch, and later Lorenz with his breakthrough and accidental discovery of the mathematical field of chaos itself. “Chaos Theory” is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. In other words, a reckoning with systems that display persistent randomness and a perceived lack of total predictability. There is a nuance to this, however, as a system can simultaneously appear ordered, yet harbour chaotic behaviour within (as Lorenz discovered). Alternatively the systems may seem entirely chaotic however it obeys certain patterns when looked at closely (such as the aforementioned flocking birds). Among all the far reaching applications of Chaos Theory in describing the natural and human-made world, the most recent development has also been deemed worthy of the Nobel Prize. On Tuesday 5th October of this year, three leading scientists in their respective fields were awarded the title of the Nobel Prize, including a share in a $1.53 AUD million reward, by the Royal Swedish Academy of the Sciences. The Nobel recipients are Syukuro Manabe of Princeton University, Klaus Hasselmann of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, and Giorgio Parisi of Sapienza University of Rome. The prize itself was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems”, including “the physical modelling of Earth’s climate… and reliably predicting global warming”. This is the first occasion a Nobel Prize in Physics has been attributed to the field of environmental science and studying the future of the world’s changing climate, and initiates an interesting chapter in the interplay between research in physics, mathematics, and the global climate in decades to come. Receiving one half of the total prize money, Professor Parisi was awarded for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales. Having been at the cutting edge of complex systems research since the 1980’s, Parisi observed hidden patterns in disordered complex materials. His discoveries in understanding and describing the behaviour of these seemingly random materials and phenomena has far reaching contributions into biology, neuroscience and machine learning. Parisi’s work provides a mathematical framework for studying the evolution of the global climate as an example of a complex system. The Earth’s climate is a complex system of vital importance to humankind. Professors Manabe and Hasselmann, two senior climate scientists, shared in the other half of the prize for their contributions in modelling the Earth’s climate system to reliably predict global warming and climate change. In the 1960’s, Professor Manabe led the development of physical modelling of the Earth’s climate, uniting previously separate models of the ocean and atmosphere to demonstrate how increased levels of carbon dioxide impact on temperature on the Earth’s surface. This has effectively laid the foundations of modern climate models used today. Professor Hasselmann followed this up with research of his own a decade later, finding a link between local weather and climate. Hasselmann and his colleagues produced a model which described why climate models can be reliable despite weather being changeable and chaotic, and his work has been used to prove that the increased temperature in the atmosphere is due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The decades-long work of all three Nobel Laureates fundamentally shaped our understanding and ability to predict how the chaotic and interwoven behavior of the atmosphere, oceans and land will change over time, and strengthen our understanding of the changing climate on our planet. As put by the Nobel Committee for Physics, their discoveries demonstrate that our knowledge about the climate rests on a “solid scientific foundation”, one which can only grow with future generations of climate scientists, physicists and inquirers of the world under a scientific lens. The world in which we live is a random and chaotic one. Despite this sea of unpredictability, a deeper understanding of its mathematical nature can reveal patterns which have far reaching ramifications to our society and even our existence on planet Earth. The Nobel Prize in Physics is one significant step toward greater understanding of real-world complex systems which impact us, and a deeper recognition of the impact we have upon the Earth’s climate. Our ability to understand complex systems is one of a myriad of stepping stones into the great unknowns of science. To those turning away from studies in mathematics and physics for their seemingly abstract and complex nature, the future of our society is written in these laws and it is up to us to master them with pen and paper. References: Bradley, Larry. “Strange Attractors.” Chaos & Fractals, 2010. https://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/attractors.html Gardini, L., Grebogi, C. & Lenci, S. “Chaos theory and applications: a retrospective on lessons learned and missed or new opportunities.” Nonlinear Dyn 102, 643–644 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05903-0 Irfan, Umair. “Earth’s climate is chaotic. The winners of the 2021 Nobel Prize in physics found patterns in the noise.” Vox, October 5, 2021. https://www.vox.com/22710418/2021-physics-nobel-prize-climate-change-chaos-model Oestreicher, Christian. “A history of chaos theory.” Dialogues in clinical neuroscience vol. 9,3 (2007): 279-89. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2007.9.3/coestreicher Plus Magazine. “Maths in a minute: Poincaré and the beginnings of chaos.” Universtiy of Cambridge, February 28, 2017. https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-beginnings-chaos Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2021. Thu. 25 Nov 2021. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/press-release/ Randall, David. “Winners of 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics built mathematics of climate modeling, making predictions of global warming and modern weather forecasting possible.” The Conversation, October 6, 2021. https://theconversation.com/winners-of-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics-built-mathematics-of-climate-modeling-making-predictions-of-global-warming-and-modern-weather-forecasting-possible-169329 Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

Understanding the Mysterious Science of Sleep By Evelyn Kiantoro Sleeping is just something we do at the end of the day, but why? It’s a daily routine we rarely question! Check out this article for a brief review of the current research out there on sleep and dreams. Edited by Katherine Tweedie, Juulke Castelijn & Niesha Baker Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Casey Boswell “Today I don’t feel like doing anything, I just wanna lay in my bed,” sings Bruno Mars in The Lazy Song. That is exactly what our inner narrative says every Monday morning, right? After the long weekend, having fun partying or catching up with some work, there is nothing worse than getting back into the weekday grind. All we want is an eternity of rest and sleep because – for the majority of us – sleep is a way to relax; it takes us away from the stressful reality of life. However, our physical condition when we sleep suggests that it is not actually very safe. When we sleep, we are in a mysterious state; we lie down and are vulnerable to predators without any defence. To minimise the dangers of sleeping, humans built houses that provide warmth and shelter from the weather and protection from predators. But sleeping is seen in various other lifeforms, not just us humans – and species that live in the wild experience conditions that are far more dangerous. Dreams are an even bigger mystery in the science of sleep; they do not seem to have any significant benefits, and their purpose is largely unknown. However, as with everything that is passed on from generation to generation, sleep and dreams must have a significant evolutionary advantage for our fitness and survival. Due to the different obstacles and routines faced by various species, different species sleep in different ways. Generally, predatory animals such as humans can sleep for long periods of time (1). Conversely, prey animals are constantly vigilant; instead of sleeping for a long time, they only rest for short periods (2). A particularly interesting example are dolphins and seals, who have evolved to keep half of their brain “asleep” while the other is “awake” during sleep (3). This shows us that sleep really is important for our survival, and that various organisms have even adopted mechanisms to combat obstacles to sleeping. So, the cost of sleeping must be worth it, right? The answer is “yes” – but scientists are unsure of exactly why. Why do we sleep? Various theories in literature on the purpose of sleep have been broadly categorised into two theories: the adaptive and restorative theories. One of the reasonings behind the adaptive theories proposes that creatures that are inactive at night have increased chances of survival due to a lower risk of injury (4). Another perspective suggests that humans sleep at night to conserve energy for the day, when it is more efficient to hunt for food (5). This theory has also been supported by the fact that humans have a 10 per cent decrease in metabolism during sleep (6). However, both theories were proposed in relation to our ancient lifestyle when we needed to physically hunt for food. Looking at our present lifestyle, this reasoning may not be as applicable – but it is still embedded in our system. There are other theories that explore the reasoning behind sleep from the perspective of restoration. The restorative theory speculates that sleep allows us to repair cellular components that were used throughout the day, as many important growth hormones are shown to be released during sleep (7). This theory is also supported by the most widely accepted reasoning for why we sleep, which is that sleep is necessary for the growth and maintenance of the brain’s structure and function, and that it is crucial for optimising memory consolidation (8, 9). Sleep also affects other physiological aspects, such as immune function, endocrine function, cardiovascular health and mood (10, 11, 12) . Sleep disorders are shown to be associated with cardiovascular disease, and sleep reportedly enhances immune defences against pathogens. The fact that there are various theories explaining why we sleep shows that there is no single perfect explanation. Regardless of why we sleep, we still get into bed at the end of the day. This is mainly because of our circadian rhythm, which controls our desire for sleep. Our circadian rhythm is controlled via the hypothalamus: an area at the centre of our brain that receives sensory inputs from various parts of the body. During sleep, the hypothalamus receives input from our eyes, which detect light levels (13). When we are exposed to high levels of light in the morning, the circadian rhythm promotes wakefulness (14). However, at night, when there is less exposure to light, the circadian rhythm promotes sleep due to the increase in the production of the sleep-regulating hormone, melatonin (15). Even though we have a central control system that regulates when we sleep, there is still a large variation in sleeping time among humans; some people sleep for only five hours, and others sleep for up to ten or more (16). Sleep duration is affected by factors such as physical and social environment, diet, activity, body mass index, comorbidities and mental health (17). Despite the contributions of lifestyle differences, some studies have shown that human sleep duration and timing is also influenced by genetic factors but is regulated by the circadian rhythm and brain activity (18). Currently, little is known about the specific genes and genetic mechanism involved in sleep duration, and more research is still being done in the area (19). These factors could explain why people often feel sleepy throughout the day, in addition to the variation in sleeping patterns in the population. However, as is so often the case in science, there is no one specific factor that may result in differences within the population – instead, a combination of these factors is likely to be responsible. The phases of sleep Did you know that there are different kinds of sleep? All humans go through two different sleep phases: non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (20). NREM takes up approximately 75–80 per cent of our total sleep duration, whereas REM takes up 20–25 per cent (21). Sleeping normally progresses from NREM 1–4 through to REM, and this cycle occurs four to five times each night (22) - for more details on sleep phases, check out Table 1! Most of the restoration processes in the body are believed to take place during NREM 3, as well as during REM. However, one particular question often stands out when it comes to sleep stages: when do we dream? Dreams: what are they, anyway? While there are some exceptions, it is widely believed that dreaming most frequently occurs when a person is in the REM stage of sleeping (25). When some individuals sleep, they sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between reality and the dreaming state. This can be explained by the fact that we are consciously aware in dreams, and we often have perception and emotion (26). Dreams are in fact richer than our consciousness – they can create scenarios that may be impossible in our conscious reality (27). They are highly visual, contain sounds and are often an experience instead of a mere thought (28). Interestingly, the striking similarities between consciousness and dreams may indicate that dreams reflect the organisation and function of our brain (29)! Various evidence has shown that dreams are more likely to be a result of our imagination. One argument states that blended characters and the bizarre properties of our dreams are more likely to be produced by our imaginations, as these are not something an individual would experience in the conscious state (30). Furthermore, the fact that dreams rarely contain smells or pain may be a result of us having difficulties imagining those sensations while awake (31). Looking at dreams as a higher form of our imagination may explain our uncertainty, poor recall, disconnection from the environment and lack of control over the situation while dreaming (32). However, it is interesting to keep in mind that our imagination is a result of the knowledge we already have. This knowledge is based on what we learn from our conscious reality, explaining why our dreams sometimes feel so realistic. An unsolved mystery Did you realise that sleep is one of the few activities you were not taught to do? As newborns, we only know how to digest and excrete food, breathe, show emotions and sleep. We digest food as an energy source; we excrete food to prevent the build-up of toxic substances; we breathe to supply our organs with oxygen; and we show emotions to communicate how we feel. So why is sleep one of these essential activities? And why is dreaming such a universal human experience? Despite extensive research, the answer remains buried in us like a secret in a mystery novel. This answer is not so far away – but unfortunately for us, it is not the type of book you can finish in a day. Instead, it is one with an infinite number of chapters. References: 1, 2. Purves, Dale, George J. Augustine, David Fitzpatrick, William C. Hall, Anthony-Samuel LaMantia, and Leonard E. White, Neuroscience (5th Edition). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2012, 627. 3. Siegel, Jerome M., “Do All Animals Sleep?”, Trends in Neurosciences 31, no. 4 (2008): 208-213. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.02.001. 4. Siegel, Jerome M., “Sleep Viewed as a State of Adaptive Inactivity”, Nature Reviews 10, no. 10 (2009): 747-753. doi: 10.1038/nrn2697. 5. Freiberg, Andrew S., “Why We Sleep: A Hypothesis for an Ultimate or Evolutionary Origin for Sleep and Other Physiological Rhythms,” Journal of Circadian Rhythms 18, no. 1 (2020): 1-5. doi: 10.5334/jcr.189. 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25. Brinkman, Joshua E., Vamsi Reddy, and Sandeep Sharma, Physiology of Sleep (Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls, 2021). 9. Rasch, Bjorn, and Jan Born, “About Sleep’s Role in Memory”, Physiological Reviews 93, no. 2 (2013): 681-766. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00032.2012. 10. Leproult, Rachel, and Eve Van Cauter, “Role of Sleep and Sleep Loss in Hormonal Release and Metabolism”, Endocrine Development 17 (2009): 11-21. doi: 10.1159/000262524. 11, 14, 24. Jawabri, Khalid H., and Avais Raja, Physiology, Sleep Patterns. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls, 2021. 12. Ahmad, Adeel and S. Claudia Didia, “Effects of Sleep Duration on Cardiovascular Events,” Current Cardiology Reports 22, no. 4 (2020): 18. doi: 10.1007/s11886-020-1271-0. 16, 19. Keene, Alex C., and Erik R. Duboue, “The Origins and Evolution of Sleep,” Journal of Experimental Biology 221, no. 11 (2018): 1-14. doi: 10.1242/jeb.159533. 17. Billings, Martha E., Lauren Hale, and Dayna A. Johnson, “Physical and Social Environment Relationship with Sleep Health and Disorders,” Chest 157, no. 5 (2020): 1305-1308. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.002. 18. Porkka-Heiskanen, T., “Sleep regulatory factors,” Italiennes de Biologie 152, no. 2-3 (2014): 57-65. doi: 10.12871/000298292014231. 20. Miyazaki, Shinichi, Chih-Yao Liu, and Yu Hayashi, “Sleep in Vertebrate and Invertebrate Animals, and Insights Into the Function and Evolution of Sleep,” Neuroscience Research 118 (2017): 3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2017.04.017. 21. Troynikov, Olga, Christopher G. Watson, and Nazia Nawaz, “Sleep Environments and Sleep Physiology,” Journal of Thermal Biology 78, (2018): 192-203, doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.09.012. 26, 27. Hobson, Allan J., “REM Sleep and Dreaming: Towards a Theory of Protoconsciousness,” Nature Reviews 10, (2009): 803-813. doi: 10.1038/nrn2716. 28, 31, 32. Nir, Yuval, and Giulio Tononi, “Dreaming and the Brain: From Phenomenology to Neurophysiology,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, no. 2 (2011): 1-25. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.001. 30. Ichikawa, Jonathan, “Dreaming and Imagination,” Mind & Language 24, no.1 (2009): 103-121, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01355.x.

< Back to Issue 2 What’s the forecast for smallholder farmers of Arabica coffee? For millions of smallholder farmers residing in the rural highlands of East Timor and Ethiopia, Arabica coffee is a major source of income. Yet, weather patterns are threatening their future livelihoods. With global coffee yields predicted to dramatically reduce in coming decades, how will this touch Melbourne’s privileged cafe culture? by Hannah Savage 10 December 2021 Edited by Ashleigh Hallinan & Irene Yonsuh Lee Illustrated by Aisyah Mohammad Sulhanuddin The world loves its coffee. After crude oil, coffee is the most exported commodity in the world and global demands are projected to skyrocket alongside demographic growth (2). With a strong inclination by Australian citizens to participate in our bourgeois cafe culture, Australian demand can be expected to mimic this trend. However, as climate change continues to throw curveballs, pressures to satisfy these demands will be felt by all in the supply chain. There are many species of coffee beans, yet global consumption relies only on a narrow genetic selection. Coffea Arabica is the dominant coffee bean species in commercial production (approximately 70 percent), followed by Coffea Robusta (2). Agricultural research and breeding of these crops are not extensive, considering their high sensitivity to climate. If Arabica was a child, it would be the no-mash-touching-the-peas type. Though a laborious crop to farm, this fussy plant has low yield when too much shade deprives it of sunlight or too little shade shrinks soil moisture levels. It insists on altitudes 1000-2000m above sea level and 2000mm of rainfall per annum (2). Moreover, the optimal air temperature for Arabica is 18-21 degrees Celsius (3). With these environmental specifications, it is expected that half of the world’s optimal areas for growth of Arabica and Robusta are expected to be lost by 2050 due to climate change (13). After Hurricane Maria hurtled across Puerto Rico in 2017, 80 percent of coffee trees were destroyed and rural livelihoods were flattened overnight (4). Climate change does not pay sympathy towards poor and marginalized rural communities. Frequency and intensity of extreme weather is increasing in many developing nations. Changes in temperature, weather events and rainfall patterns are already challenging the ability of farmers to adapt. Rainfall distribution is becoming more erratic and unpredictable. This is a key concern to farmers as rain patterns correlate with timing of flowering and fruit production (2). Flowering is usually triggered by the first rains of the wet season, yet unpredictable rains during the year may cause flowering at undesirable times. Unsynchronized ripening requires additional harvesting cycles, costing farmers more money and labour. In addition, water scarcity and warmer air temperature also have profound impacts on harvests. Prolonged drought leads to misshapen or small beans with marks and imperfections (3). Low moisture and heat stress causes wilting, death of crops or acceleration of bean growth (3). At temperatures above 23 degrees, fruit ripens too fast for a rich, sweet coffee flavour to develop (2). What will thrive from these changing climatic conditions are pests, diseases and coffee rust fungus, which are becoming more prevalent in areas previously unfavourable for their survival (5). The insect Coffee berry borer has been a particular challenge to coffee producers globally, as it feeds on coffee beans and damages plantations. One to four generations of these critters are born each fruiting season (5). Climate change brings uncertainty to the future livelihoods of millions of smallholder coffee farmers around the world, who produce 70 percent of the world’s coffee (6). While world leaders dance around pretty statistical graphs of their carbon-cutting “achievements”, there is the underlying issue that global efforts to lower emissions will not have equal consequences across geographical locations. Poorer economies abundant in fossil fuel resources are pressured to implement policies that further increase their vulnerability and are left grappling to find quick coping strategies. Although it accounts for only a small percentage of global coffee production, East Timor is one of the most economically dependent on coffee. East Timor, the small-island nation 700km north-west of Darwin, has relied on its oil sector for economic development in recent decades, but now interest from foreign traders is depleting with global trends towards renewable energy. The coffee industry has been identified by the East Timor government as being a key opportunity for sustained economic growth and reduction of rural poverty. More than 18 percent of Timorese households rely on coffee production as their primary source of income (7). Coffee producers have a poverty rate of 47.9 percent, which is higher than the national rate of poverty, 40.3 percent (7). Many coffee-producing households are without electricity or access to clean water and regular meals. Figure 1: Distribution of coffee-selling households in Timor-Leste (7). Timorese Arabica coffee farmers today celebrate achieving yields their grandparents would have considered inadequate in the early 20th century during Portuguese occupation. This reflects how much the climate has changed across generations. Rain, once predictable to begin at the end of every November, is now inconsistent and reduced (1). Unfortunately, adaptive solutions often demand high investment and low reward in the initial implementation stages. Farmers may be reluctant to remove their aging, unproductive coffee trees and replant new ones for fear of losing a major source of income while waiting for financial output from the new growth (9). There is the temptation to instead plant new crops between existing ones, which exploits soil nutrients and harms coffee yields. Small short-term rewards also discourage poorer farmers from participating in collective reforestation projects (9). There is much work to be done to restore ecosystems devastated from rainforest clearances during Indonesian colonisation in 1975, which occurred mere months after independence from Portugal. Shade trees that characterise these tropical rainforests play important roles in supporting coffee growth. If farmers grow coffee crops amongst the rainforest, crops will benefit from wind shelter and rich soil nutrients (8). Shade reduces daytime air temperature and increases humidity. In the region of Baguia, the collaboration project WithOneSeed, (co-founded by Melbourne’s own ‘The Corner Store Cafe’ owners), actively alleviates poverty by restoring rainforests and granting farmers profits from carbon credit trades. Farmers plant an indigenous shade tree, carbon credits are purchased by foreign customers to offset fossil fuel emissions and a remuneration of 50cents per tree is given to farmers each year so long as the tree survives (10). WithOneSeed therefore provides rural coffee producers with income before trees mature and re-establishes tara bandu, customary resource management that sustained Timor Leste’s environment for centuries pre-colonisation. Organic beans are purchased from smallholder farms at a fair price by The Corner Store and roasted in Oakleigh. The supply chain is transparent and traceable and profits go towards funding WithOneSeed planting. Plus the coffee is good quality and grown without nasty chemicals! (11) Simple adaptive responses are also being made by coffee producers in the world’s fifth largest Arabica producer, Ethiopia (3). As Arabica has been said to originate here, it is perhaps unsurprising that 16 percent of the population rely on coffee for their livelihood. Figure 2: The main coffee growing areas of Ethiopia (3). In the case of a global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees Celsius, land areas suitable for coffee production in Ethiopia would be expected to decline by 21 percent (12). Resilience for smallholder Arabica producers now depends on creative solutions using limited technology and resources available to rural communities. Relocating farms to higher altitudes of Ethiopian highlands is one solution. But this transition comes at a cost for coffee producers in the form of social network losses. While climate conditions of higher land might be more suitable, other factors such as land tenureship rights and soil quality may pose new obstacles (13). As rain seasons shorten and dry seasons lengthen, Ethiopian coffee producers aim to boost irrigation by diverting nearby streams. This is an ancient and cost-effective solution that enables coffee to successfully be grown in areas classified unsuitable (3). Similarly, coffee producers are carrying out traditional techniques of mulching, where laying compost over soil conserves soil moisture (3). However, more government investment in supporting these adaptations is needed to keep ahead of global warming (3). Sustainable agriculture also needs to be met with fair prices. Many Ethiopian farmers do not have access to foreign traders who will pay premium prices that outweigh production costs. Coffee prices are determined by the international market, or “C price”, which is based on the theory that cost is proportional to global demand, with no consideration of quality or organic farming practices (14). This supports and encourages cheap, unsustainable agricultural practice because sustainable or not, farmers will receive the same revenue for their produce. To combat this, Ethiopian business CoQua, based in Addis Ababa city, facilitates opportunities for private producers to link with international clients and initiate direct lines of trade (14). Through CoQua, Melbourne’s Seven Seeds cafe were able to establish a trade relationship with private smallholder Ethiopian Arabica producers. Seven Seeds claim to pay 3.56 times the “C price” (14). Continue as we may to remain disconnected from the challenges of an environmentally fragile coffee industry, it is only a matter of time before global reduction makes noticeable impacts on Melbourne’s shielded society. What will happen when coffee stocks fail to meet Melbourne demand? Seven Seeds co-owner Mark Dundon told The Sydney Morning Herald that he predicts coffee prices will rise, despite general reluctance of consumers to spill more than one bank note from their wallets for a flat white (14). And why shouldn't we pay more for our hot beverages if producers vulnerable to food insecurity are paying more from the brunt of climate change? The following decades have a bitter outlook, but the recent pandemic outbreak enhanced our ability to envision rapid global disruptions where no corner of the world is excluded. Certainly a disruption to Melbourne coffee culture is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things, but as consumers it is one worth considering now. The future for Melbourians to satisfy their cultural addiction balances dangerously on a series of environmental conditions being met in foreign highlands. While it’s true that being a “smart consumer” can feel like a matter of blind faith (how fair is fair trade?), favouring businesses that have ethical, direct lines of trade with smallholder producers is one small, immediate solution towards building a sustainable future for our treasured beans and those in the firing line of climate change. References: 1. Jack Board, “From crop to kopitiam, Asia's coffee is facing its biggest threat - climate change,” CNA, published 29 February 2020, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/climate-change-coffee-prices-timor-leste-crops-1338741 2. Abaynesh Asegid, “Impact of Climate Change on production and Diversity of Coffee (Coffea Arabica L) in Ethiopia,” International Journal of Research Studies in Science, Engineering and Technology 7, 8 (2020): 31-38. 3. Kew Royal Botanic Garden, Coffee farming and climate change in Ethiopia, (London: The Strategic Climate Institutions Programme), 37, https://www.kew.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Coffee%20Farming%20and%20Climate%20Change%20in%20Ethiopia.pdf 4. “How is Climate Change Impacting the Future of Coffee?,” TechnoServe Business Solutions to Poverty, published 16 September 2021, https://www.technoserve.org/blog/climate-change-impacting-future-coffee/ 5. Getachew Weldemichael and Demelash Teferi, “The Impact of Climate Change on Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Production and Genetic Resources,” International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences (IJRSAS) 5, 11, (2019): 26-34, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2454-6224.0511004. 6. Michon Scott, “Climate and Coffee,” Science Information for a climate-smart nation, published 19 June 2015, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/climate-coffee 7. Brett Inder and Nan Qu, Coffee in Timor-Leste : What do we know ? What can we do ?, (Australia: Monash University), 17. 8. Simon P.J Batterbury, Lisa R. Palmer, Thomas R. Reuter, Demetrio do Amaral de Carvalho, Balthasar Kehi and Alex Cullen, “Land access and livelihoods in post-conflict Timor-Leste: no magic bullets,” International Journal of the commons, 9, 2, (2015): 619-647. 9. Lisa Walker, Understanding Timor Leste, (Dili: Swinburne Press, 2013), 22-158. 10. Andrew Mahar, “Meet the farmers helping to reforest Timor-Leste,” World Economic Forum, published 26 January 2021, Meet the farmers helping to reforest Timor-Leste | World Economic Forum (weforum.org) 11. “The Roastery,” The Corner Store, accessed November 2021, https://cornerstorenetwork.org.au/the-roastery 12. Cheikh Mbow et al., Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, (2019), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/08_Chapter-5_3.pdf 13. Yen Pham, Kathryn Reardon-Smith, Shahbaz Mushtaq and Geoff Cockfield, “The impact of climate change and variability on coffee production: a systematic review”, Climatic Change, 156, (2019): 609-630, The impact of climate change and variability on coffee production: a systematic review | SpringerLink 14. Dani Valent, “ 'The industry's at risk': the high price of cheap coffees,” published 31 May 2019, national/the-industry-s-at-risk-the-high-price-of-cheap-coffees-20190528-p51rti.html Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

Forward by Dr. Jen Martin Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Image from Dr Jen Martin I’m sitting cross-legged on top of an enormous granite boulder which is intricately patterned with lichen and overlooking the forest. It’s pouring with rain and the weather matches my mood: I feel confused and lost even though I know this patch of forest better than the back of my hand. For years I’ve been working here night and day studying the behaviour of a population of bobucks or mountain brushtail possums. I know their movements and habits intimately, having followed some of these possums from the time they were tiny pink jellybeans in their mothers’ pouches. I love this forest and its inhabitants, and I feel privileged beyond words that I’ve had glimpses of the world through these animals’ eyes. But today I feel despondent. I chose ecology because I wanted to make a difference in the world: to protect animals and the habitats they depend on. And there’s no question field research like mine is essential to successful conservation. To protect wildlife, we need to understand what different species do and what they need. But there’s a missing link. The people with the power to make decisions to conserve nature aren’t the same people who will read my thesis or papers or go to my conference talks. And that’s why I feel so lost. Why have I never learned how to share my work with farmers, policy makers and voters, all of whom may never have studied science? Why didn’t anyone tell me: it’s not just the science that matters, it’s having the confidence and the skills to communicate that science to the people who need to know about it? "Science isn't finished until it is communicated." Sir Mark Walport Fast forward 15 years and I can see my afternoon of despair in the rain was a catalyst. It’s why I decided I needed to learn how to talk and write about science for different audiences. And why I decided the most useful contribution I could make as a scientist was not to do the research myself, but rather to teach other scientists how to communicate effectively about their work. Science communication has been my focus for more than a decade now. You only need think of the Covid-19 pandemic, or the biodiversity or climate crises to realise that scientists play a pivotal role in tackling many of the problems we face. But scientists need to do more than question, experiment and discover; even the most brilliant research is wasted if no one knows it’s been done or the people whose lives it affects can’t understand it. Sir Mark Walport, former Chief Science Advisor to the UK Government, said: ‘Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated’. And I couldn’t agree more. The more scientists who seek out every opportunity to share their work with others - and know how to communicate about their work in effective and engaging ways - the better. And that’s why I couldn’t be more excited about OmniSci. Science really is everywhere, and I invite you to revel in its complexity, wonder, and relevance in these stories. And to applaud the science students behind this magazine who want to share their knowledge and passion with you. These are the scientists the world needs. Dr Jen Martin (@scidocmartin) Founder and Leader of the UniMelb Science Communication Teaching Program (@UniMelbSciComm)