The New Phytologist Tansley Medal is awarded annually in recognition of an outstanding contribution to research in plant science by an individual in the early stages of their career (student and post-doctoral researchers with up to five years’ experience since gaining/defending their PhD are eligible). The winner will receive a prize of £2000 (GBP) and will author a short review that will be published in New Phytologist, accompanied by an Editorial announcing the winner and finalists. The application deadline for this year’s Medal is 30 November 2015.

The Tansley Medal is an opportunity to award recognition to an outstanding scientist in the early stages of his or her career and supporting and nurturing the next generation of plant scientists is a core aspect of the activities of the New Phytologist Trust. I would be very grateful if you would support us in this endeavour by spreading the word to anyone you know who might be eligible to apply for the 2016 Tansley Medal. If you have any queries regarding the medal or the submission process please do not hesitate to get in touch. More details on the Medal can be found at: http://www.newphytologist.org/tansleymedal.

Chris Cazzonelli

Your membership type is [wpmlfield name=”membershiptype”] which is paid to [wpmlfield name=”paidtodate”] (year, month, day).

Hello everyone,

Just a quick reminder our AGM is tomorrow evening (Wednesday 30th September) at 5.35pm in Room 218 of the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre.

See you at the ASPS dinner tonight, Janet Wheeler.

Your current membership type is [wpmlfield name=”membershiptype”] and is paid to [wpmlfield name=”paidtodate”] (year, month, day).

Dear Members of ASPS,

Please be advised that the 2015 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Society of Plant Scientists will be held at 17:30 – 18:30 on Wednesday 30 September 2015 in Room 218, Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, Melbourne, Vic. As usual, the ASPS Annual General Meeting has been scheduled during the COMBIO conference week.

Below please find the Agenda. If you would like to add any items to the Agenda, please e-mail these to the Honorary Secretary Martha Ludwig (martha.ludwig@uwa.edu.au or secretary@asps.org.au), by Friday 25 September 2015.

Sincerely,

John Evans

(President of ASPS)

Your current membership is [wpmlfield name=”membershiptype”] which is paid to [wpmlfield name=”paidtodate”] (year, month, day).

GPC/SEB Plant Section Symposium on Stress Resilience, 23–25th October 2015, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil

Dear ASPS member,

I just read an interesting item in the Research School of Biology (ANU) newsletter included below about a paper which received sexist reviews. The authors were disappointed in the lack of response to their protest, so they tweeted parts of the review which certainly raised its profile and engagement of the journal.

Professor John Evans
President of ASPS

Sexist peer review causes storm online.
Megan Head has been in the news after she and her colleague Fiona Ingleby received an inappropriate, sexist review of a manuscript they submitted to PLoSONE. (For the record, their study surveyed male-female differences in success at obtaining post-doctoral funding/fellowships.) After an unsatisfactory review process, and having lodged an appeal and giving the journal a reasonable chance to attend to the matter, Drs Head and Ingleby posted portions of the review on Twitter. There was an eruption of online responses and articles in major print media, including the Times Higher Education, Washington Post, and Science. Megan’s experience is a timely reminder of the need to be proactive in countering sexism in science.

2014 Plant Nutrition Trust Travel Scholarship Report Michael Heaven

Dr Michael Heaven Agriculture Research Division Agriculture Group Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) Victoria, Australia

Recipient of Plant Nutrition Trust Travel Scholarship to attend World Congress of Soil Science 2014, Jeju, South Korea

The World Congress of Soil Science is like the Olympics of soil. It happens once every four years, in different countries around the world, and the location voted on by members of the soil societies based in various countries. Bribery was evident from the candidates of the next congress – being chocolates, bookmarks and from the winner of the next Congress, little balloon creatures! Thanks in large part to the Plant Nutrition Trust, in June 2014 I was afforded the opportunity to attend the World Congress in balmy Jeju Island, South Korea. Jeju Island, a dormant volcano off the south coast of the Korean peninsula, was certainly an excellent choice for a conference exploring and explaining about all things growing on top of and under the ground, as well as the ground itself. The volcanic rocks presented themselves in various fashion, from the black sand of the beaches to the spiky, stone like formations of Jusangjeolli, the lava remnant of Sanbang-ro sticking abruptly out of otherwise flat ground, and finally the towering, almost 2 km high volcano, Mt. Halla, that disappeared into low cloud that permeates Korea in June.

About 2000 scientists from around the world swamped the International Convention Centre (ICC) Jeju to discuss and present the latest results of their research. The morning sessions were for keynote speakers, who presented weighty issues of global significance, with session titles such as Soil for Peace, Soil Security, Soil-Plant Welfares for Human, and Global Soils: Future Nexus. I was struck by how these keynote speakers could connect the big picture with the paddocks and pastures we use for research. For instance, Prof. Rattan Lal of Ohio State University showed how historically and today civilisations live and die depending on how they treat their soil, be it for things such as crops, forests or carbon sequestration. He presented a bold claim that all wars are connected to soil degradation. Closer to our conference destination, I was surprised to find from speaker Dr. Ho-Seung Yang that World Vision, whose first programme began with helping Korean orphans after the Korean War, were sponsoring programmes of joint research and collaboration between North and South Korean scientists using agriculture as a means to bridge the distrust between the two warring states. It was heart-warming to know that research to improve pasture and crop quality, research we all do, was being used to break down barriers between two disparate ideologies, and hopefully feed people who often don’t have enough to eat. However, more dire predictions were made by the keynote speakers of the Soil Security and Soil-Plant Welfares for Human sessions, who warned of the challenges of the human created “Anthropocene” (8000BC to present). The take home message was that agricultural scientists had a great responsibility to feed a growing world that is likely to have an increased variability in climate, using soils that are being increasingly degraded. As Prof. Donald Sparks of the University of Delaware pointed out, there is a knowledge gap between the research we do and how it is applied in the field, and interdisciplinary groups are a key to resolve the problems of increasing the productivity of the soil without degrading the environment.

These keynote speakers led the way for a plethora of talks and presentations on soil science. My own research, using metabolomics to understand biogeochemical processes in soil and leachate, appeared to be a relative newcomer to soil science – nothing like being on the cutting edge! Our research at DEPI, which detailed how organic phosphorus compounds found in soil water extracts from a dairy farm were related to pasture type (ryegrass or a ryegrass/clover mix), cultivation or annual phosphorus application, was presented to a wide variety of people. I discussed with various scientists from Australia, Germany, USA and elsewhere, how metabolomics could be combined with traditional agricultural analyses to help understand why certain agricultural practices are affecting nutrient concentrations in soil. In particular, I was questioned how we can make sense of the massive amounts of data collected when using metabolomic techniques. As with most agricultural scientists, statistics, in particular, multivariate statistics, provided a guide and a visually arresting description of what was occurring in soil. The ICC is a huge convention centre, and with 2000 delegates it was impossible to see everything. And there were many interesting things to hear about. German scientists from the University of Gottingen discussed the progradation of land, where I was surprised to find that Australia has the second largest area of abandoned agricultural land after Russia. While progradation is leading to increases in soil carbon, it is projected that it would take 170 years to return Russian soils to their pre-agricultural state. Korean scientists from Kangwon National University discussed how they combined remote sensing technology with reports from Mongolian sheep and goat herders to get a better understanding of the processes linking climate, livestock rates and vegetation. Closer to my own research, Taiwanese scientists from National Chung Hsing University discussed how they determined interactions between phosphorous and iron in soil, and ways that this new knowledge may be used to increase nutrients available to plants. It was also good to see a fellow DEPI scientist, Dr Abdur Rab, show how using standard X-ray computed tomography technology can provide insight into soil macroporosity in Australian farms. The overall message I took from the conference presentations was that Australian research into agriculture is as advanced as anywhere in the world, and that combining our skills with others from other scientific disciplines will provide insights that we couldn’t find on our own. The World Congress was an excellent chance to see the latest in agricultural research from around the globe. It was good to meet up with fellow scientists, see new ways of doing research, and to take home ideas for future projects to help the farmers of Victoria. I thank both the Plant Nutrition Trust and DEPI for giving me the opportunity to see how fellow scientists are tackling the same questions we have in Australia, and to present our own leading research.

by Dr. Christopher Ian Cazzonelli

From the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment at The University of Western Sydney.

Science Meets Parliament was truly an “awesome event and eye-opening experience”. On the 24^th to 25^th of March, over 200 scientists representing the “science” of life from plant biologists to chemists, physicists and mathematicians all converged in Australia’s capital city of Canberra for two days to learn about how politics, policymaking and the media work. The event provided a unique opportunity to examine science from different perspectives through facilitating a greater understanding between scientists and parliamentarians, stimulating discussions in parliament of scientific issues that underpin Australia’s economic, social and environmental wellbeing, and even more so solidifying deeper understanding of science through the wider community to further the interests of the nation.

I was fortunate to represent The Australian Society of Plant Scientists while attending this annual event, which was on my “bucket list” of things to do as a scientist. Why? I am passionate about improving my skills in the art of effective communication. It seems imperative that scientists have a prominent voice in parliament that flows with excitement to support long term Australian research and provide effective ideas to engage our fellow politicians and policymakers in a language they can understand. I hoped that by immersing myself in parliament I could develop a more realistic perception of politics and perhaps harness some skills to share with readers of the ASPS as well as my colleagues at the rapidly growing Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment at The University Western Sydney.

The overarching theme of the two-day program was to prepare each conference attendee for an interview with a politician in parliament house. No stress, easy done, I think not! How would you handle meeting Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Honorable Minister for Industry and Science Ian Macfarlane, or perhaps the amusing likes of Member for Kennedy Bob Katter or even Greens Senator for Victoria Janet Rice? If you wanted to give a positive and effective impression, my guess is that such a task might be more difficult than one anticipates. What seemed stressful at first was made easier after two days of preparation. Surprisingly, fellow conference attendees who were lucky to meet the aforementioned politicians all came back from their interviews with pleasant experiences and a new appreciation that politicians were normal people with the best intentions of our country at heart. Now that was unexpected and Science Meets Parliament is about preparing for the unexpected so that a scientist’s voice is heard, understood and effective in promoting change.

So here is how they managed to get us ready over two days of stimulating panels, discussions, talks and engaging interview simulations.

The first day started with a session on how to meet the media, where we learnt more about a day in the life of a reporter. Now their day might be as boring as that of a scientist, except when the “perfect storm” arises with data that grabs the average reader’s attention. What made the NCRIS funding story recently so hot in comparison to that of an endangered ecosystem is that jobs were at stake, the significant level of funding to be cut and an essential interview with Nobel laureate Professor Brian Schmidt, which pieces all the ingredients together to provide the golden story. So how do we get the media’s attention with a “good story”? You need conflict, human angles, policy issues, party angles, economic wellbeing, general interest and good reading. The ultimate judge is the consumers, and they will ask “what is in it for me” or “why should I care”? What is the headline? Can I explain this to my mum? Is it broad reaching? What sources of media should one use to promote the story? These are questions to ask as a scientist when trying to sell the media a meaty story.

Next we were exposed to the art of a successful political meeting by a panel of experts. Essentially the “rule books have been thrown out” and reform is hard to achieve. We were encouraged to become proactive as scientists and approach our local members with solutions. We should highlight a political cost if the local members do not respond to science-based evidence that can shape a political arena. It is always good to engage the local member with a personal interest and help them identify the stakeholders. A good meeting with a politician should have three clear points, one action, and most of all is convincing as well as emotional. Invite them to your work; take them on a journey that aligns your agenda with their parties’ future by identifying vote winning “hot buttons” to push. The focus of any meeting should have an outcome and the message can be challenging to convey in 5 minutes or less if they have a busy schedule.

The messy nature of policymaking presented by Mr Martin Hoffman (Deputy Secretary of the Department of Industry and Science) was our next lesson of day 1. Too often policymaking was “seen as ad hoc, left to chance and individual skills” and acted upon by events of crisis or when internal reform is necessary. It was said that “policy is separate to politics” and that “good policy is good politics”. Politics is a view of values whereby policy is responsive to politics, but needs to be an enduring agent. Scientists need to realize that science-based evidence can facilitate better politics. The take outs of this session were: 1) beware of being a philosopher king as values and choices in society are the key, 2) policy is about tradeoffs and how do we know when we have spent too much on science, 3) timing is important and when “the window is open” the policy is ripe to change, 4) beware of the misuse of science as science-based policy is best and we should avoid policy-based science and 5) policy is about dealing with constraints which are truly binding.

Professor Graham Durant (Director of Questacon) told us about who is inspiring Australia. Apparently, we as scientists are inspiring Australians and need to push positive communications throughout the community. It was pointed out that scientists serve society and we shouldn’t take public support for granted. The good news is that 40% of Australians were aware of National Science Week in 2013. We need work exchanges to bring science into the media to exchange ideas, perhaps through a science media resident program. We should be promoting a creative and entrepreneurial culture that is more cohesive to draw scientists together and we need to learn how to communicate stories more effectively. This is not just the job of Science and Technology Australia, it is our responsibility too.

Professor Brian Schmidt and Prof. Hugh White taught us how to talk and think like a policymaker. It became apparent that policymakers are not after the truth; they just want to make decisions. As John F Kennedy said “To govern is to choose”. So it is better if, as scientists, we give policymakers knowledge and assist them in making decisions. It is far less effective to say “I know something and you need to change your policy”. Professor Schmidt said that we should not “underestimate your ability to influence politicians”. Objectives are usually always dependent upon resources and policymaking is a dynamic process that scientists need to participate in if we are to make a difference. There will be bouncing between facts and decisions and it is important to work with them and talk a language they understand. At this stage I felt that we needed to become advocates of business science as “advocacy is driven by analysis”. Nobody owns a result in policymaking; you throw out ideas and knowledge and have to be open to criticism. Most politicians apparently want a positive outcome and “good policy really does matter”. It was made clear that we shouldn’t talk about opinions, but rather how experts can support policymakers with facts that are balanced with a public view.

We closed the day learning how to get science out of the lab. We were required to undertake a simple, yet not so simple, exercise – to tell our science story in one minute as if we were addressing a politician. After only 5 minutes of such short notice preparation, competitions were hot amongst the conference delegates, first by table, than by corners of the room until delegates had voted their favorite speakers to showcase effective communication skills to the entire delegate conference. I was fortunate by chance that nobody on my table wanted to present and then selected from my corner of serious competitors to join the final four on stage. It was a tough task trying to rapidly condense my molecular interests in plant science into one minute, with little practice and have it reveals enthusiasm, thrive with passion and tell a scientific story about how plants can perceive and acclimate to a “green thumbs touch”. The final four one minute presentations can be viewed on the YouTube Channel “Getting your Science out of the Lab” (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkWrR8YYDTgDuqa5N2hobFd1OUNscW1Zm). The exercise was not about winning or losing, but rather it forced us scientists to explain what we do in simplistic terms that a politician or policymaker can understand. I suspect we all found this challenging, but what we really learnt is just how important effective communication skills are in the process of dealing with politicians, policymakers and most importantly convincing the general public about how important science is to Australia’s future.

The Gala dinner that night at Parliament house was absolutely superb and the speech by Honorable Minister for Industry and Science Ian Macfarlane touched base with plant scientists in his highlights of how important agriculture is to Australian exports. Professor Ian Chubb reinforced these comments at the National Press Club Address the next day. He spoke about the face of climate change and addressed that in order to feed nine billion people in the world by 2050 we need to invest in agriculture. He highlighted the importance of plant science as a means to improve yields and be responsive to the 2050 needs by making sure we have the right crops in the right areas as weather patterns change. He was questioned about the GMO debate and pointed out that experts need to communicate more effectively and facilitate the debate. He expressed that we need to have the three P’s for success; “passion, persistence and patience”. It is easy to scare people with myths or skewed stories, but the GMO debate has not been dealt with well. Professor Chubb saw that GMOs have a place and we need to have debates to inform the public and decide what it may look like in the future when dealing with feeding a hungry world in 2050 and combating climate change. He also pointed out that we need better high school education and to nurture student curiosity in science. We need to broaden the education system beyond science to prepare for the future and pointed out that all university students should be enrolled in at least one core subject of science.

Finally, we heard Ian Chubb release an important report about the impact of physics, chemistry and mathematics on our economy. They directly add $145 billion to the Australian economy each year ($292 billion indirectly, equivalent to 11% of GDP) and 760,000 jobs (7% of all jobs in Australia). Science needs to be seen as an investment and the economic studies are serving as a platform to argue for long term funding to facilitate infrastructure as well as changes in policy. We as Australians are contributors and users of knowledge. As an example, he highlighted that the rates of return ($700-900 million) in agriculture are the highest of any government investment in science. To meet trade agreements we need to predict weather patterns, rainfall and look for crops and nutritional high yielding plants that are better suited to areas impacted by climate change. The overall view to support the present with an eye to the future is looking extremely bright for plant scientists. Let’s hope the government invests in a greener future focused on agriculture with a long term investment strategy.

Thanks to Lorna Sim for supplying the photos which have been made available for publication as outlined by Gia Metherell (Events & Media Officer) from Science & Technology Australia.

Follow @HIEatUWS and @eelaboratory

Attention women early career researchers and their mentors:

Fellowship opportunity for those who are up to 5 years post PhD – please consider

21st January 2015

Global Plant Council New Media Fellowship Available

The Global Plant Council (GPC) seeks applications from PhD students and postdoctoral scholars working in the area of plant science for a New Media Fellowship that carries a small stipend of US$3,500.

The Fellow’s task will be to use social media and other outlets to publicize the activities of the GPC and to expand the Council’s reach. The Council is especially interested in expanding its engagement with researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders in the fields of agriculture and food production. GPC’s leadership believes that social media channels are one mechanism to reach a wider audience, and we seek a fellow with demonstrated experience in these media to support the work of the GPC. The successful candidate will work closely with the GPC Executive Director, Dr. Ruth Bastow and members of the GPC Advocacy group.

The minimum requirements for this fellowship are :-

1. Familiarity and understanding of all forms of social media,
2. Active participation and use of at least one social media tool or outlet to promote science
3. Knowledge of and enthusiasm for plant science, and excellent English language skills.

To apply for this fellowship please send an up to date CV and letter of application to info@globalplantcouncil.org by (Friday 27 February 2015).

GPC New Media Fellowship-Final

THE PLANT NUTRITION TRUST has been established to encourage and promote research and technology transfer in the mineral nutrition of plants, soil fertility and fertiliser and soil amendment technology, and includes areas where these impinge on other fields such as plant breeding.

THE TRUST invites applications for awards to assist in carrying out a study tour or to attend a conference or such other activity related to the stated objectives.

Awards will be made to promising students and early-career scientists working in the areas mentioned above. More than one award may be made, depending on the applications received.

In making these awards independent assessors will consider the applicant’s achievements, recent contribution to industry, research, technology transfer and their potential for future contributions to plant nutrition.  The amount of each award depends on the number of applications received, the nature and cost of the activity proposed and the potential for other sources of funding.

Applicants must be Australian citizens or permanent residents and be based in Australia.

Applications for the next round close on 2 March 2015

Further details and application forms can be obtained from:

Dr Peter Ryan                         e-mail:    Peter.Ryan@csiro.au

CSIRO Agriculture

GPO Box 1600

Canberra  ACT 2601

Tel:      (02) 6246 5053

About the Plant Nutrition Trust: The Trust was established from a combination of surpluses collected after previous international conferences held in Australia, donations from The Sulphur Institute, the Australasian Soil and Plant Analysis Council (ASPAC) and other individuals.  Further donations are welcome. The Management Committee has included people associated with the Fertiliser Industry Federation of Australia, the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, the Australian Society of Soil Science, the Australian Society of Plant Scientists, the Australian Soil and Plant Analysis Council and CSIRO Agriculture.

Plant Nutrition Trust application 2015