As East Asia's economy grows, so do its emissions of carbon and sulfur. The associated aerosols scatter and absorb solar radiation and modify the radiative properties of clouds. Those modifications, in turn, cause shifts in the monsoon patterns that affect the agriculture of one of the world's leading producers of rice and wheat.

Whether aerosols by themselves are responsible for the change in EASM behavior was one of the topics discussed at this year’s general assembly of the European Geosciences Union, which was held this week in Vienna, Austria.

The EASM is a seasonal change in atmospheric circulation and precipitation associated with asymmetric heating of the land and the sea. As the air over East Asia warms, it rises and creates a low-pressure area, which draws cool moist ocean air toward it. This inward movement generally leads to a predictable precipitation increase in July and August.

For the last three decades, however, the summer rain belt has shifted toward the south. Northern China has seen a drought in recent years while southern China has seen floods. Speaking at the EGU meeting, Jianping Li of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, pointed out that “the primary response of the EASM to global warming may be a southward shift of the rain belt, instead of an intensity change.”

“The maximum surface warming [increase up to 0.7°C over the past 30 years] occurs over high- to mid-latitudes [45°N–60°N],” explained Li. In the past, the highest temperatures occurred at lower latitudes. The warming rate that Li refers to is a change in temperature with time experienced in the north but not in the south. Because temperatures in the north are increasing while those in the south have remained relatively constant, there is a reduction in the pressure gradient, with the result that the moisture-laden sea air does not appear to be getting as far north as has been observed in the past. So rain now falls farther south although the average precipitation over the entire monsoon region remains the same.

Li uses models developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to investigate how surface temperature and the resulting monsoon patterns respond to anthropogenic and natural forcing. He tests model robustness by matching mean values, signal variations, and natural oscillations with data sets from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

“The largest uncertainty [of radiative forcing components] is aerosols,” Li said. While a main cause of planetary warming is carbon dioxide gas trapping long-wave radiation from Earth, aerosol particle effects are much more complex. Li added that “we should consider natural forcing too,” which includes varying solar input, volcanic emissions, and the Arctic oscillation.

Aerosol size and composition

Xiahong Liu, climate scientist from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington, also spoke at the EGU meeting. He pointed out that China's sulfur emissions have increased nearly fivefold between 1950 and 2011. At the same time, surface energy flux over East Asia has decreased by 5 W/m² a decade. Sulfur emissions are converted to sulfate aerosols by oxidation in the atmosphere.

Liu takes the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5) and applies it in a novel way to investigate the role of specific aerosol properties in the weakening of the EASM. Rather than looking at collective aerosol mass as has been done before, he examines how the size distribution and composition of different aerosols can bring about changes and be used to predict future effects. Sulfate and organic carbon (OC) generally have a cooling effect because they scatter incoming solar radiation back to space. Black carbon (BC)—also emitted by diesel combustion and biomass burning but with different chemical structure to organic carbon—traps radiation, which causes a warming effect.

In their particulate form, the combination of sulfate, OC, and BC can also modify cloud properties: A larger number of particles corresponds to a larger number of nuclei on which a fixed amount of water can condense in a lifted parcel of air. The increase in nuclei leads to a larger number of smaller cloud droplets and a more uniform cloud droplet size distribution than would occur without the extra particles. The resulting clouds produce less rain because rain drops form only when cloud droplets coalesce, which requires a broad particle size distribution.

Liu's experiments with CAM5 examine the effects of combinations of BC, OC, and sulfate emissions on atmospheric structure. Although the model is benchmarked against satellite measurements of aerosol absorption for 200 sites worldwide, including 10 in East Asia, there is still no satisfactory method of checking the composition of the absorbing aerosols. “We're trying to use Chinese data sets to get more information about composition, but sulfate emission is not reported to the government by very small factories,” added Liu. Actual aerosol effects may be stronger than those predicted by the model.

Weaker monsoons

Overall, the influence of aerosols on radiation and on clouds generates a net surface cooling over China of 1 to 2 kelvin. Aerosols also reduce the solar flux reaching the land. Since 1950, the total reduction in surface flux in China is thought to total 30 W/m², with the biggest contribution occurring after 1980. Lower land temperatures flatten the land–sea temperature gradient, thus weakening the monsoon effect.

According to Li, because aerosols promote surface cooling, they cannot be responsible for the warming that causes the southerly precipitation shift. But according to Liu, aerosols do indeed shift the precipitation pattern. “Precipitation is loss of water vapor, and the latent heat capacity of the ocean balances this,” he explained. The latent heat of the ocean has a greater effect than that of the land, which drives the ocean–land temperature gradient and also the monsoon.

Liu agreed with Li, however, that the average amount of precipitation over the entire monsoon region remains the same. When water vapor is trapped in the aerosol-laden atmosphere, the amount of rain that falls in light showers decreases, but short periods of heavy preciptation intensify.

It might not be folks just in the southern part of East Asia that should be getting out their umbrellas, though. Long-range transport of pollution from East Asia to North America is a new cause for concern. As East Asia's economy continues to grow, so will its aerosol emissions. The effect of pollutant outflow as well as monsoon effects on agriculture might not be confined to East Asia alone.

Rachel Berkowitz

For years after the first superconductors were created, the highest temperature they were able to operate at—designated by T_c—hovered close to absolute zero and climbed at an excruciating rate of less than a degree a year new materials were discovered. Then in the late 1980s, with the discovery of copper oxide superconductors, T_c jumped suddenly, and the world hoped to see a revolution in technology as a result. Visions of levitating trains, superconducting server farms, lossless electricity transfer, and the like peppered the newspapers. Davis compared the anticipated technological revolution with the actual technological revolution that semiconductors brought about.

Alas it was not to be. After that initial cuprate jump, progress in raising T_c leveled off at about 135 K—high enough for laboratory and industrial endeavors, but too cold for consumer products. The discovery of pnictide superconductors in the late 2000s seemed to hold a lot of promise because their superconductivity resembles that of the cuprates but is different enough to suggest an alternative route to higher T_c. Despite an explosion in research, the highest pnictide T_c remains around 50 K.

What happened? Although the ideas for applications of superconductors were there, the materials themselves were not. Researchers in the field are still trying to devise a comprehensive theory of high-temperature superconductivity that could point the way to truly high-T_c materials. The one clear thing is that the answer, whatever it may be, is mighty complicated.

In his talk, Davis laid out several leading theories that physicists are currently investigating: strong correlations, antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations, local pairing, and quantum critical points. All the theories so far are incomplete. They explain aspects of why certain materials superconduct at higher temperatures, but none of them offers an all-encompassing explanation.

At the end of his talk, Davis called on the students in the audience to rise to the challenge before them. Because of their potential impact on the world, the discovery of materials that superconduct at room-temperature is one of the most tantalizing goals in all of physics.

“The challenge that I pose to you, is to just look at the facts and come up with an answer,” Davis said.

Davis showed a timeline of major milestones for superconductivity, from its original discovery in 1911 by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, 1933 when Walter Meissner and Robert Ochsenfeld discovered their eponymous effect, on through to 1986 when high-temperature cuprates were discovered. On average, each major theoretical advance happened 26 years apart. According to Davis's plot, 2012 is the year for the next big discovery.

Of course science doesn’t obey timetables and schedules. Who knows, maybe the pnictide superconductors discovered in the late 2000s will supply the next data point in Davis's plot, or maybe the long-sought-after comprehensive theory is just around the corner. Nevertheless, Davis remains optimistic about the future.

“It’s a complicated problem no doubt,” Davis said. “I certainly believe we can understand what’s going on here, and we will achieve room-temperature superconductivity.”

Mike Lucibella

Abo-Shaeer grew up in Santa Barbara, California. After earning a bachelor's degree in physics and a master's in mechanical engineering—both from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)—he spent a few years working in industry. He then switched to teaching high-school physics, ending up at the public school he himself had graduated from, Dos Pueblos High School.

Since starting at Dos Pueblos in 2001, Abo-Shaeer has been garnering increasing acclaim for the engineering academy he founded within the school. He is planning a program for teachers to come spend a sabbatical year at the Dos Pueblos Engineering Academy so "they can learn how to do it and then go home and replicate it on a small scale, without wandering in the dark like I did."

Crown Publishers is set to release Neal Bascomb's The New Cool: A Visionary Teacher, His FIRST Robotics Team, and the Ultimate Battle of Smarts in March. The book follows Abo-Shaeer and academy seniors as they participate in the FIRST Robotics Competition. Academy slots are in high demand, the teaching approach is innovative, and graduates are getting into good colleges. Perhaps most attention-getting is that, in a field that struggles for gender parity, fully half of the students at Dos Pueblos Engineering Academy are girls.

Academy seniors will compete in March and April in the 20th anniversary of the FIRST Robotics Competition. The challenge this year is to build a robot that hangs inflated shapes at different heights in a game akin to giant tic-tac-toe. Winning the robotics competition in their third year of competing "solidified everything," Abo-Shaeer says, and helped raise money for the academy's expansion.

Last summer the academy broke ground on a new $6 million building. With more space, better machine shops, and fancier computer centers will come more students, new teachers, and a project-based curriculum that interweaves physics, engineering, and art.

Physics Today's Toni Feder caught up with Abo-Shaeer by phone.

PT: Why did you switch from a career in engineering to teaching high school?

ABO-SHAEER: I worked in aerospace and in telecommunications for about four years. In aerospace, I basically did research and development on different kinds of solar panel arrays. In telecommunications, it was just really boring stuff—that is what made me leave engineering. It was great that I had that job, because I really don't think I was cut out to be an engineer. I like inventing and home-project engineering, but sitting in a cubicle and doing engineering proper didn't suit me.

I had a very positive mentor in high school, my band teacher. I felt that high school was the best match in terms of the skill set I had and the student population I wanted to work with.

PT: How did you make the switch?

ABO-SHAEER: I just quit. I applied to UCSB's teacher-education program to get a credential. I wanted to stay in Santa Barbara, and all three high schools were hiring in science. I chose Dos Pueblos not because it was my alma mater but because they had received a grant to pilot an engineering program. That is what I have developed.

PT: Tell me about the academy you founded.

ABO-SHAEER: Starting from the beginning, I had this chunk of money that was to develop curricula and a plan. I spent the first year investigating—I went to schools, looked at what other people were doing. Then I started to try to create curriculum. I found out what the process was in the state of California, and it's not easy. The UC system insists on approving courses that it will count as college preparatory. That put a very substantial bureaucracy between me and what I knew was good curriculum. It's not that the UC system was trying to stifle things, but in standardizing the process, innovation was not honored.

I decided to accept that there were constraints, and to stop contemplating flying to Sacramento to yell at someone.

The academy is a school within a school. In their first year, students take only engineering physics in the academy. I taught physics, but would infuse projects into it, and make it engineering physics. It bothered me that the UC system would not give the kids credit for engineering physics. In their second year, they do a project-based learning class. The third year is AP [advanced placement] physics. I needed to create a senior class, and I wanted something competitive and exciting. I also knew that the senior year had more flexibility, because at that point the students had already created their transcripts that would get them into college. I could create a nonapproved course. I made the title robotics, so if it was on their transcript, MIT wouldn't care whether it was UC-approved or not.

The senior course was to design and build a robot, which would be entered in the FIRST Robotics Competition, a national competition. We run the course like a business. The seniors manage all aspects with me—web design, grant writing, graphic arts. I teach students to take a conceptual idea to completion. That is what they need to be successful in the world. High school doesn't teach that. College doesn't either.

PT: How does the robotics competition work?

ABO-SHAEER: You create a robot for a game. The robots are 150 pounds, they are real machines, they are on wheels. They do sports. We get a rule book, pour through it, and approach it from two perspectives. The robot design perspective is, what can the robot do to meet the challenge? And the game theory perspective is, how is this game going to be played? The way the design process works is the students break up into four electrical/electromechanical subgroups, an electrical group, and a programming subgroup.

The third year, we won. That year, the game was like NASCAR, only you had to pick up a ball that was 40 inches in diameter, bring it with you, and throw it over an 8-foot fence every time it went around the track. We had a forklift that would expand from a 4-foot to 15-foot robot in two seconds.

When we first got there, I realized that what I was doing was completely not what anyone else was doing that was competing in this competition. It was mainly clubs. Some teachers got stipends, and the kids were not getting course credit. People thought that I was insane, because the club teams had kids that were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, so when the seniors graduated, they didn't lose all their intellectual capital. But for my team, recruiting is not an issue, because this year's juniors will be next year's team.

After our team participated a few times, the organization behind the competition came to my classroom. They said, "We don't understand how you have a team that starts out with brand new kids each year, and are able to compete at the level of teams that have existed for 15 years. They have long-term mentors, and everyone knows what they are doing."

At that point, I had three competitions under my belt. The fact that my students were all seniors was beneficial because they were mature, they had already applied for college, they knew they would only get to do this once, and they were able to throw all their effort into the robots.

PT: Where did things go from here?

ABO-SHAEER: It was the robotics competition and watching my students that made me realize how backward what I was doing was because of the constraints put upon us. It was extremely frustrating. I applied for a $3 million grant from the state of California available for upgrading or building facilities related to any of a dozen or so sectors identified [by the state] as being engines behind the economy—agriculture, technology, tourism, etc. One of them is engineering. With some parents from the academy, I formed a foundation to raise matching funds. We got the grant.

The academy is going to grow from 128 kids—32 in each grade level—to 400. Kids apply in 8th grade, and we always have three times the number of qualified applicants as we have spaces.

PT: The academy is known for having an equal number of girls and boys. How do you achieve that?

ABO-SHAEER: When I taught physics classes, they were basically half girls. Put in the word engineering, and bam! it was down to two. So, I brought girls from the program to the junior high schools during our recruitment presentation. I made it overtly obvious that girls were involved. When I looked at the questionnaires we had given out, I saw that way more girls had said they were interested than had followed up with applications. So I called the families of those girls—and most of the people said they had no idea their daughter would be interested. The number of girls in our applicant pool went up. Now it's strong and we don't have to do anything anymore.

PT: What about minorities?

ABO-SHAEER: We have an applicant pool that is only as diverse as the people that are qualified to be in the program based on what the education system has done. Our diversity in terms of minorities is increasing, but it's not a success story yet.

PT: What are your plans for the expanded academy?

ABO-SHAEER: My new curriculum was approved by the UC system [in November]. We are doing a serially integrated curriculum—this is new, I think I made it up. A kid takes one course their freshman year, and gets fractional credit in physics, fractional credit in engineering, and fractional credit in art. So over the course of three years, they get one year of each.

What is great about this is that now there is no race to get through specific content. Instead, you figure out what physics skills, what art skills, and what engineering tools you need for a specific project. The idea is built around the premise that the students are learning whatever they are learning at any given time to make a given project successful.

PT: What are examples of projects?

ABO-SHAEER: One teaches the mundane concept of vectors. Students will have to use a milling machine to make an artistic project that has curved features. The only way you can get curved features is if you understand the relationship between Cartesian and polar coordinates, which is going to require you to understand vectors.

Another example: I need to teach kids about equilibrium and force balance, so I have them make a mobile. First they will learn the equation for equilibrium and balance and torque. Then they design artistic elements, then they weigh the elements. If it does not balance, they can go back to their equations and see why not.

The projects are all two weeks, done in pairs or alone. I have made up about 30 of these projects so far. I worked with an art teacher. Our goal was, we would not compromise physics, we would not compromise art, and we would not compromise engineering. If any of those were compromised, or if it seemed fake, we wouldn't do it.

PT: Why art?

ABO-SHAEER: My hope is that by infusing art into it, and saying, look, we are going to be creating art projects and relating it to science, I think a whole new set of people are going to be attracted into this program.

PT: Are you preparing people to be scientists? Engineers?

ABO-SHAEER: No. I want people to have a positive experience with their science and understand how stuff can all relate together. I do not have a mission to get people to go into science and engineering, but because of the positive experience they have, they do.

I tell people that the type of thinking we require in the program is the type of thinking required in the world to be successful. It's problem solving.

PT: When you switched to teaching, did you have ambitions of the scope you are achieving?

ABO-SHAEER: No. I was just excited about helping students. I was looking to teaching as something where I could give back, do something fun, and have a lifestyle that was supportive of my creativity. Eventually, all of my creativity ended up being directed toward the program.

PT: Did your pay plummet when you left industry to teach?

ABO-SHAEER: I did have to take a pay cut, but it hasn't been all that bad because I am director of this program. The difference is that engineers are salaried, and I get paid hourly. I work as many hours as an engineer, not less like a teacher typically does. In the end I am not worse off, and I am having a ton more fun.

What I try to tell students is that you have to follow what you want to do, and it will work out. In my case, not just in terms of happiness, but financially, things are working out. And now this award. I feel it's because I am doing what I am passionate about.

PT: Speaking of your MacArthur genius award, first, congratulations. What are you planning to do with it?

ABO-SHAEER: I don't know. I am not going to pay off my house. I am not going to go on a crazy spending spree, but I am also not going to buy pencils and erasers. For me as a public high-school teacher, it has given me the liberty to feel like I can do whatever I want.

PT: What are your thoughts about how to attract more people to become teachers?

ABO-SHAEER: Most people think the problem is that teachers are not paid well, but it's more than that. When you become a teacher, you start out at the bottom level, no matter how much experience you have in something else.

People who think midcareer about switching to teaching can stomach not getting paid as much, but they cannot stomach having their experience disregarded. This is a huge problem.

The most common question students ask is, When will I use this? That's not being communicated to them because the people teaching have only learned whatever it is as part of the path to getting their degree. They have never actually used what they are teaching. The system is fundamentally flawed in that it is not encouraging people to come into it. If you look at it, it's an unhealthy closed system.

As part of the visit, the journalists were given the opportunity to submit written questions to Australia's minister for innovation, industry, science, and research, Kim Carr. Here are some of the questions asked by Physics Today and the answers.

PT: How does Australia set its priorities for funding science?

CARR: The possibilities created by science and investment in research are endless.

There will always be competing priorities. This is why we need to make strategic decisions for investment and we base these on what is in Australia’s best interests.

The Australian government seeks value from its investment in research infrastructure. We aim to ensure that any investment in future research infrastructure is targeted to provide maximum benefit to Australia’s innovation system.

The National Research Infrastructure Council

In 2009 the government created the NRIC to provide strategic advice on future research infrastructure investments in Australia.

The council is made up of research leaders from across a wide range of research disciplines. Its role is to ensure that we do not lose sight of the future needs of our researchers, our industries, and our communities.

It is vital to have such people advising on the best way to fund research infrastructure in Australia. The council’s work complements other consultation mechanisms to allow our leading research institutions to share their insights with government.

Landmark research infrastructure projects

In assessing Australia’s priorities in research funding, a process is needed to specifically assess competing “landmark” research infrastructure projects. These are research infrastructure projects that require funding from the Australian government in excess of AU$100 million for the first five years of a project. (Australian and US dollars are almost equal in nominal value.)

NRIC has consulted with the Australian research community and recently proposed a process to the government which is under consideration. Until such time as a landmark research infrastructure process is announced, it would be inappropriate to comment in detail on what the process might be. However, the discussion paper released by NRIC offers some insights into issues associated with a landmark research infrastructure process in an Australian context.

The objective of developing this process is to ensure greater certainty for the scientific community on how decisions are made and the opportunity to focus effort in developing proposals.

It will also contribute to improved scientific outcomes generated by the increased stock of research infrastructure where funding flows to landmark research infrastructure projects are made.

Finally, it will contribute to a more transparent decision-making process by governments, offering greater accountability in the use of taxpayer funds.

Assessing competing priorities

Priorities are established in a number of ways and in the past we have relied on road mapping as the key method for making decisions.

This approach has worked well and we intend to develop a new road map for research infrastructure in Australia to be released in the latter part of 2011.

In addition to the road map we are currently developing a strategic framework for research infrastructure in Australia. These two strategic documents will be finalized in consultation with the sector and will aim to set out priorities for research infrastructure capabilities and provide a foundation for the department to inform the Australian government regarding the needs of the sector for future funding.

PT: How do the government and the scientific community interact?

CARR: The scientific community is a source of knowledge and expertise that the Australian government regularly draws upon.

Our consultation with the scientific community spans many activities from projects like the upcoming 2011 Strategic Roadmap for Australian Research Infrastructure, to leveraging support for the Square Kilometre Array.

We regularly interact with diverse groups including federal government agencies like the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS); state and territory agencies; and nongovernment groups like academies, universities, and research institutions.

The way we consult varies depending on the issues at hand and includes

• discussion papers for comments and written submissions,
• forums and conferences,
• and individual meetings and workshops.

We also engage the scientific community through our advisory structures by having representatives from across the sector sitting on scientific advisory boards like the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) and the National Research Infrastructure Council (NRIC).

Collaboration is the key to innovation. By drawing on the best minds from across the research community, industry, and government we achieve the best results.

We also recognize that collaboration should not be limited to program design; this is why we interact with the scientific community broadly and continuously when undertaking our policy development and evaluation activities.

PT: What is the Australian government doing to attract young Australians to careers in science and non-Australians to work in the country’s universities, research institutes, and high-tech industries? Does Australia's 1% graduate tax hurt those efforts?

CARR: Research workforce strategy

The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, and Research is currently anchoring the development of a Research Workforce Strategy to ensure that Australia is able to meet expected shortfalls in the supply of research-qualified people. The strategy will also address concerns regarding the lack of clear career paths for research students and the adequacy of the research training system to effectively prepare them for varied career outcomes.

Work to date has included consultation with a wide range of interested parties. A workshop with higher degree by research (PhD and research master’s) students was held in December 2009 to examine issues faced by HDR students in completing their studies and embarking on research careers. There have also been consultations with public and private sector employers, researchers, and research leaders.

The department also commissioned two studies: Employer Demand for Researchers in Australia and Australia’s Future Research Workforce—Supply, Demand and Influence Factors. Both these studies are available on the department’s website.

The strategy, which goes out to 2020, will be provided to the minister for innovation, industry, science, and research for consideration by the end of 2010.

Data on higher degrees earned by research students

Data on higher education in Australia, including information relating to higher degree by research (HDR) candidates is collected through the Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS) administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). The data include information on commencement, completion and attrition rates, demography, and field of education. Further information can be found on the DEEWR website.

Attracting young people into science careers

The Australian government conducts a number of activities to attract young people into science careers, including through DEEWR. More information can be found on the DEEWR website.

DIISR is responsible for a suite of programs for young people, including programs and initiatives managed by Questacon, Australia’s national technology and science center.

Questacon programs include Questacon Science Play, which offers a hands-on science session for children aged 2–5 years and a workshop for educators; the Questacon Science Squad, which performs exciting and entertaining science shows for schoolchildren of all ages; and the Tenix Questacon Maths Squad, which offers exciting presentations and over 500 hands-on puzzles, tasks, and activities to challenge and excite young students.

The Inspiring Australia report provides a national strategy for engagement with the sciences. The strategy aims to build a strong, open relationship between science and society, underpinned by effective communication of science and its benefits. In line with the report’s recommendations, the Australian government has announced AU$21 million as part of the Science for Australia’s Future policy. This will include continued support for the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science and National Science Week, and other science events and activities to unlock Australia’s full potential, including programs for young people, and activities targeting regional and remote areas. These activities all contribute to the objective of promoting scientific careers among young Australians.

Higher Education Loan Program (HELP)

It is not correct that Australia applies an additional 1% tax on graduates of Australian universities. Under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Australian government subsidizes higher education through the funding of Commonwealth supported places and providing eligible students with Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) loans. Most undergraduate students studying at university are enrolled in Commonwealth-supported places, available at all public universities and some approved private higher education providers (in identified areas of national priority).

A key equity feature of Australia’s higher education system is the loan arrangements available under the HELP scheme, which ensure that eligible students are not prevented from participating in higher education if they are unable to pay their tuition costs up front.

Eligible students may take out a HELP loan for their tuition costs, and repay the debt later through the taxation system. Eligible Commonwealth-supported students who opt to pay their student contribution up front receive a 20 percent discount funded by the government.

HELP debts have no interest and have income contingent repayment arrangements. Outstanding loan balances are indexed only to maintain their real value, and people are required to make repayments only when their income reaches the minimum threshold for compulsory repayment (AUS$44 912 for 2010–11, indexed for later years). Loan repayments are returned through the Australian taxation system to consolidated revenue and are available for general expenditure on government services. If a HELP debt is never repaid because of low income, the government meets the cost.

Measures to encourage the study of and careers in science

The government has committed to encouraging more people to study science (and mathematics). From 1 January 2009, the maximum annual student contribution amount for commencing Commonwealth-supported students studying science and mathematics units was reduced to the "national priority" rate (per equivalent full-time load), taking it from AU$7567 to the lowest "national priority" rate of AU$4249 (2010 rates, indexed for later years). The government is meeting the cost by paying universities the difference between the new lower student contribution amount and the previous amount.

Further, to encourage skilled graduates to work in related fields, the government introduced the HECS-HELP benefit initiative. This initiative provides a reduction in compulsory HELP debt repayments for science and mathematics graduates who go on to work in related professions, including teaching of these subjects in secondary school and primary school teaching. The benefit reduces their compulsory repayments by up to $1558.50 in 2009–10 (indexed in later years). A person will be able to receive the benefit for up to a lifetime maximum of the equivalent of five years of eligible employment.

PT: How do you balance participation in international programs with internal pressures to fund researchers? What is the level of scientific cooperation and collaboration between Australia and China and between Australia and its other regional neighbors?

CARR: It is not an either/or situation. Australia recognizes that, to be effective, support for Australian research must include engagement with international research programs.

The Australian government recently announced in the Science for Australia's future policy statement that it would strengthen Australia’s links with the best international researchers and institutions and forge closer partnerships with leading players.

International collaboration builds capacity, facilitates access to new knowledge, attracts foreign investment, and extends Australia’s global influence.

International science engagement is essential to maximize the economic, social, and environmental impact of Australian research and to leverage Australia’s investment in science and innovation.

Collaboration with other countries provides Australian researchers with access to additional expertise and infrastructure, and significantly increases the scale and effectiveness of Australia’s research effort. These considerations underpin the government’s adoption of a National Innovation Priority that seeks to increase international research collaboration by Australian researchers and businesses.

Australia will also mainstream its support for international research collaboration through a variety of mechanisms: Australian Research Council (ARC) grants support international collaboration; the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) Flagship Collaboration Fund enables international participation in large-scale multidisciplinary research partnerships; the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) program encourages CRCs to engage globally and seek co-investment from international organizations; and increased support for university research in the 2009–10 budget is laying the foundations for more international collaboration between individuals and institutions.

Australian governments conduct regular reviews into the effectiveness and value of funding programs, reassessing priorities in light of the broader government agenda, and balancing fiscal responsibilities to deliver social and economic benefit to all Australians.

Australia–China Science and Research Collaboration

Level of Cooperation: China has rapidly emerged as a global power in science and research.

Australia views China as a priority partner for bilateral science collaboration, and science and research cooperation is a key component of the broader Australia–China relationship. The number of publications with Australian and Chinese co-authors rose from 114 in 1996 (our 12th most important partner) to 2295 in 2009 (our 3rd partner behind the US and UK). Australia rose from 10th to 6th amongst China’s partners in the same period.

Australia and China enjoy an enduring relationship, nurtured over the last 30 years at the government-to-government level. This is achieved within the framework of the bilateral Treaty on Cooperation in Science and Technology, signed in 1980. It has been given effect by the signing of a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Cooperation in Science and Technology in 1989, and with the MOU on a Special Fund for Scientific and Technological Cooperation in 2000 (updated in 2005 and 2007). Bilateral discussions occur through Joint Science and Technology Commission meetings, every two to three years.

Australia achieves many of its objectives in the bilateral science relationship by working with the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE). Both of these academies have their own MOUs with counterpart Chinese agencies.

Many other arms of the Australian government have formal arrangements with Chinese partners covering research in specific areas. Publicly funded research agencies like the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) also have formal arrangements for research collaboration and exchanges of staff. Australian universities have also established collaborative partnerships with Chinese and other international partners.

Some key examples of the many Australia–China collaborative programs are:

• ATSE facilitates a Young Scientists Exchange Program, a project that enables young Australian and Chinese scientists to visit counterparts and establish relationships leading to new international collaborations.
• The Australia–China Special Fund for Scientific and Technological Cooperation (‘the Special Fund’), launched in 2001, is the major earmarked bilateral government funding source for collaborative research projects between Australian and Chinese research organizations across diverse fields of science. To date, 133 projects have been supported by the Australian government with around $11 million, with 79 still active. Outcomes of projects have included advancements in diabetes treatments, mapping brain connections and function for studying multiple sclerosis, development of a new shape-memory alloy, a more effective method for removing lead pollution from waste water, and a new gas turbine for reducing fugitive mine emissions and utilizing methane as a clean energy source.

A sample of 30 projects chosen to illustrate the scope of the relationship can be found in an official commemorative book.

Other regional partners

Australia currently has 28 formal S&T cooperation agreements with a range of regional partner countries. Government-supported science collaboration with these and other countries is supported through a range of mechanisms including the International Science Linkages program, the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and AusAID. The level of government-supported collaboration varies over time, and is driven according to mutual government interests and priority setting.

Government support for bilateral S&T collaboration with India is facilitated by a range of mechanisms including the Australia–India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF). This fund supports joint research projects between Indian and Australian scientists across a broad range of disciplines including renewable energy, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and agricultural science.

The AISRF was launched in 2006. In November 2009, the prime ministers of Australia and India announced that the fund would be extended and expanded. With a total Australian commitment of $65 million, matched by the government of India, the AISRF is by a considerable margin Australia’s largest fund dedicated to research collaboration with any country, and one of India’s largest sources of support for international science.

There are around 65 projects currently underway, drawing in top scientists at India’s premier universities and research institutes with their counterparts in Australia.

As part of the expanded fund, in November 2010 the two governments launched a new "grand challenge fund" component that will support larger projects in the areas of energy, food and water security, health, and the environment. A new researcher exchange scheme, which aims to award travel grants to Australian and Indian early career researchers, is expected to be launched in the first half of 2011.

PT: What else would you like readers of Physics Today to know about science in Australia?

CARR: Over the last few years (2007–8 to 2010–11), our support for science, research, and innovation research and development has increased by 34% to $8.92 billion.

To continue to work toward our goal of a scientifically engaged Australia, the government has committed $21 million over three years (2011/12–2013/14) to fund the initial implementation of the strategy outlined in the Inspiring Australia report.

The Inspiring Australia report is available at http://www.innovation.gov.au.

This new national strategy for community engagement with the sciences will continue the successes of the Science Connections Program (SCOPE) concluding in June 2011 and, in addition, will coordinate Australia’s fragmented science communication activities and maximize their impact by harnessing business and community support. This new program will

• focus on recognizing achievement including the continuation of the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science;
• continue to provide hundreds of opportunities for all Australians to be involved in science through National Science Week;
• develop strategies for unlocking Australia’s potential by reaching Australians across every region of this country through best practice science communication approaches;
• connect with mainstream and new media to boost science literacy in the media and to support quality science communication to the general public.

Most of the attendees agreed that holding the IPF gathering within the larger scientific venue was advantageous. There were plenty of great talks to attend; those held by the IPF were standing room only. Graduate students were crowding in at the doors for almost every presentation, a good sign that the speaker and topic were of pressing interest.

The IPF talks were divided into four sessions. One was devoted to biomedical applications, including a new laser system to perform cataract surgery, tabletop lasers that deliver beams normally found only at much larger free-electron-laser facilities, lasers that speed up DNA sequencing, and optical coherence tomography that delivers much sharper biomedical images.

Another centered on lasers that are used in environmental research, including lidar to map Earth’s resources, quantum cascade lasers in sensors, lasers to measure product emissions, and lasers for remote sensing of Earth and other planets. The third session highlighted lasers used in metrology for applications such as timekeeping, fixing microcircuits, measuring position during lens polishing, and redefining the kilogram.

The fourth session was devoted to four general areas of research at the forefront of physics that might not necessarily have an immediate bearing on industrial applications. They were graphene, which was the subject of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics; the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, which currently provides the best view of the sky at gamma-ray wavelengths; the Large Hadron Collider, which just passed a milestone for beam luminosity; and quantum entanglement, at the heart of what will eventually be quantum computing.

The forums normally occur at 12-month intervals, but the next one will take place only 6 months from now. It will be convened at the March APS Meeting in Dallas, and the theme will be the 100th anniversary of the discovery of superconductivity.

Phil Schewe

All the talks at IPF 2010 were recorded and are now available on video.