Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses

Public acceptability of carbon taxation depends on its revenue use. Which single or mixed revenue use is most appropriate, and which perceptions of policy effectiveness and fairness explain this, remains unclear. It is, moreover, uncertain how people’s prior knowledge about carbon taxation affects policy acceptability. Here we conduct a survey experiment to test how distinct revenue uses, prior knowledge, and information provision about the functioning of carbon taxation affect policy perceptions and acceptability. We show that spending revenues on climate projects maximises acceptability as well as perceived fairness and effectiveness. A mix of different revenue uses is also popular, notably compensating low-income households and funding climate projects. In addition, we find that providing information about carbon taxation increases acceptability for unspecified revenue use and for people with more prior tax knowledge. Furthermore, policy acceptability is more strongly related to perceived fairness than to perceived effectiveness.

Several complementary methods of plant establishment are required for effective restoration of banksia woodland

New banksia woodland vegetation was established at two sites totalling 50 ha in the Perth region of Western Australia as part of an offset-funded project. Restoration methods included topsoil transfer (16 ha), planting of nursery-raised local provenance seedlings (46,000 seedlings over 39.5 ha) and direct seeding with machinery or by hand (16.5 ha) with treatments overlapped. Six years of rigorous monitoring revealed trends in plant diversity, density and cover and allowed comparison of vegetation structure and composition to reference sites. Of the 162 native plants recorded, 115 originated primarily from the topsoil seed bank and the remainder from planting and seeding. Native plant germination from topsoil peaked at 700,000 stems per ha in year 2, but there was very high attrition during extreme summer drought. By year 5, native perennials averaged 20,000 stems per ha, well above the target of 7,000, but there was high spatial variability in plant density with 1/3 of quadrats below target. Saplings of Banksia spp. (the dominant local trees) plateaued at 150-220 stems per ha due to high summer mortality. Native plant cover reached 20% and perennial weed cover stabilised at under 5% within 5 years. Several complimentary methods were required for successful restoration, since transferred topsoil established most of the plant diversity. However, trees required planting or seeding, due to their canopy stored seed. Direct seeding and planting without respread topsoil led to lower overall diversity and density, but higher tree density. Most completion criteria targets were reached after 5 years. Areas with respread topsoil are trending towards recovery as a banksia woodland, but areas with only planting and seeding are likely to remain a separate vegetation type. Evidence for resilience of restored areas was provided by abundant pollination and seed set and second-generation seedlings. We suggest it may be possible to restore banksia woodland despite major challenges due to unpredictable offset funding, climate, weeds, grazing, recalcitrant species, and seed availability, but long-term monitoring is required to confirm this.

Mentorship in academic radiology: why it matters

Mentorship plays a critical role in the success of academic radiologists. Faculty members with mentors have better career opportunities, publish more papers, receive more research grants, and have greater overall career satisfaction. However, with the increasing focus on clinical productivity, pressure on turn-around times, and the difficult funding climate, effective mentoring in academic radiology can be challenging. The high prevalence of “burnout” among radiologists makes mentorship even more important. This article reviews benefits and challenges of mentorship in academic radiology, discusses how to institute a faculty mentoring program, examines different types of mentoring, and reviews challenges related to diversity and inclusion.

Chuck out the teacher: critical pedagogy in the community

The internal workings of working class writing and publishing groups reveals important insights about the nature of democracy. The attempt to form collective and co-operative groups that supported everyone led to an active re-making of educational relationships along democratic lines. The insistence upon equality between writers, irrespective of individual ability, was a cardinal principle. However, in a changing funding climate, workshops came under pressure to formalise relationships, professionalise and introduce management structures. This had mixed results as groups attempted to negotiate these tensions. The example of the Fed brings into question some key aspects of critical pedagogy which privileges the role of tutors and education as a whole and, in some cases, assumes that learners have internalised dominant ideas.

We Are Standing Together in Front

Reputation building and visibility represent pressing requirements for living and working in academia today. These demands have been key to the corporate world and are acted upon through ‘branding’ practices. ‘Branding’ has further been shown to impact on employees and workplace identities. In academia, researching identity work is especially important because of a competitive funding climate that requires research groups to resemble an outstanding image and reputation. At the same time, stable jobs are scarce, bringing forth insecure and volatile environments characterized for example by temporary limited contracts and required internationalisation in scientific careers. Based on ethnographic work in globally recognized life science departments, I explore how individual and departmental identities relate. Thereby, I propose the concept of ‘enrolling’, that conveys how a research unit acts as a ‘brand’, and show how ‘enrolling practices’ produces stability through coherence and distinctiveness in individual and collective identities. My analysis thus allows a critical reflection on academia and the re-orderings in today´s universities that create pervasive demands for living and working

Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Survival of junior scientists in academic biomedical research is difficult in today’s highly competitive funding climate. National Institute of Health (NIH) data on first-time R01 grantees indicate the rate at which early investigators drop out from a NIH-supported research career is most rapid 4 to 5 years from the first R01 award. The factors associated with a high risk of dropping out, and whether these factors impact all junior investigators equally, are unclear. We identified a cohort of 1,496 investigators who received their first R01-equivalent (R01-e) awards from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases between 2003 and 2010, and studied all their subsequent NIH grant applications through 2016. Ultimately, 57% of the cohort were successful in obtaining new R01-e funding, despite highly competitive conditions. Among those investigators who failed to compete successfully for new funding (43%), the average time to dropping out was 5 years. Investigators who successfully obtained new grants showed remarkable within-person consistency across multiple grant submission behaviors, including submitting more applications per year, more renewal applications, and more applications to multiple NIH Institutes. Funded investigators appeared to have two advantages over their unfunded peers at the outset: they had better scores on their first R01-e grants and they demonstrated an early ability to write applications that would be scored, not triaged. The cohort rapidly segregated into two very different groups on the basis of PI consistency in the quality and frequency of applications submitted after their first R01-e award. Lastly, we identified a number of specific demographic factors, intitutional characteristics, and grant submission behaviors that were associated with successful outcomes, and assessed their predictive value and relative importance for the likelihood of obtaining additional NIH funding.

Funding Climate Change Adaptation

Adapting to climate change poses unprecedented technical, administrative and political challenges for which New Zealand’s current planning, regulatory and funding frameworks are illequipped. Without reform, they will deliver neither efficient nor equitable outcomes. Indeed, they will encourage governmental delay, incentivise sub-optimal solutions, increase future burdens, and reduce societal resilience. For sound anticipatory governance, our current frameworks need reform. This article summarises the nature of the adaptation challenges facing New Zealand, outlines the problems with current policy settings, identifies principles and considerations that should guide the reform agenda, and reviews several policy options. On balance, we favour creating a new national institution mandated to fund or co-fund, in accordance with statutory criteria, the major costs of adaptation.

Canadian M.D.-Ph.D. Programs Produce Impactful Physician-Scientists: The McGill Experience

On June 18, 2015, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) announced that it would terminate funding to M.D.-Ph.D. programs due to budget constraints, against the recommendations from two advisory panels. CIHR’s M.D.-Ph.D. program grants, which amounted to an annual average of $1.8 million in the form of 14 six-year studentships, represent only 0.15% of CIHR’s $1.2 billion operating budget. As over half of M.D.-Ph.D. trainees are dependent on these studentships, this poses a threat to physician-scientist training in Canada. In response to the current volatile funding climate, we surveyed McGill University’s M.D.-Ph.D. program alumni to assess its success in producing physician-scientists. In this program, 60.0% of graduates who have completed training have become physician-scientists, the majority being retained in Canada. These individuals have attained positions with sufficiently protected time for research and had grant success and significant publications for early- to mid-career investigators. This suggests that the current M.D.-Ph.D. system is an effective way of producing competent physician-scientists. As physician-scientists have remarkably contributed to Canadian healthcare innovation despite making up a fraction of physicians and researchers, vulnerability in the M.D.-Ph.D. pipeline would invariably affect the health of Canadians.