During the meeting the enormity, complexity and urgency of major global challenges became clear and, coupled with the fact that the G8 accounts for over half of global GDP and over 70% of OECD publicly funded research, it is clear that we have not just an opportunity but an obligation to work together.

We began by considering where collective efforts might be focused and several priority areas emerged, including antimicrobial resistance. But we also discussed how openness, coherence and coordination will help to harness the transformative potential of science and innovation and develop more joined up approaches to the biggest problems, now and in the future.  Another theme of our discussion was the need for scientists to work with experts from other fields – the arts, humanities and social sciences – and with partners from all around the world.

The G8 Science Ministers approved a joint statement which, it is hoped, will usher in a new phase of cooperation.  The statement was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt.Hon George Osborne MP, who will attend the G8 Summit on 17-18 June.  With science as a “personal priority”, he was keen to hear how to improve the efficiency and productivity of research by collaborating on a big scale.

It is the responsibility of each host country to decide the priorities of their Presidency and how to organise the G8 meetings.  I think it says a lot about British science that we have just hosted the first ever joint meeting of G8 science ministers and Academy presidents and I for one, hope that this model will continue.

“Being an engineer called Jo da Silva, people often expect a Brazilian man!”

It’s OK Jo, we didn’t.

Jo is becoming something of a celebrity in the urban development community, and her CV is impressive. She founded Arup’s International Development business, a not-for-profit arm of the Arup Group, and has worked in many post-disaster contexts; including the Rwandan Genocide, Hurricane Mitch, and the Indian Ocean Tsunami.  She is also the first female ever to deliver the famous Brunel Lecture, which spawned the LSE Cities Group talk I attended last week.

In the context of natural disasters, many of us hold the unfounded perception that cities are the safest places of all. There is also a common misconception that engineers are invincible, that somehow they can build barriers against nature. Jo suggests a real need to adopt “a new culture of safety”, whereby the concept of failure is understood as an unavoidable uncertainty, quantified and mitigated.

Earthquakes represent 60% of all disaster deaths, and these are exacerbated by the built environment. Particularly hard to fathom is that there is still no seismic planning within the Indonesian post-tsunami re-build scheme! Mostly due to the lack of communication between architects and engineers, this factor has been entirely overlooked, which really emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary exchange in the post-disaster environment.

Here in the Science Policy Centre, we have recently been viewing natural disasters through a greeny blue lens (our new project, Human Resilience to Climate Change – is broadly focusing on ecosystem based approaches to reducing disaster risks). It was therefore fascinating to hear about improving disaster resilience by altering and improving the built environment; and that most disaster related deaths are actually now attributable to the negative disaster effects upon the built environment, rather than caused directly by the natural events themselves.

An earthquake really wouldn’t be that deadly if you remove buildings from the equation….

During the LSE Cities Group talk, not only was the importance of grey so clear, but Jo also awakened my whole understanding of resilience itself. Not only should this mean human resilience in the starkest sense, as in just basic human survival, but also community and societal resilience. This requires a functioning economic centre within a town or city to be preserved, as well as its people. The importance of investing in homes as well as business developments was stressed – or there will be no-one to turn up for work! It is the entire system which needs to be protected, from people, to houses, to utilities (power, water) to supply chains and transportation. In order to allow a quick and efficient post-disaster recovery.

Many countries are making good progress on this. Take Chile for example. Just a few months after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, which killed 300,000 people, there was an even larger earthquake in Chile, yet only 1000 people died. Why the difference? Seismic planning incorporated into the built environment. Not only did fewer people die, but supply chains were uninterrupted and the country recovered from this disaster more rapidly. With investment in a stable built environment, fewer deaths go hand in hand with a functioning business centre.  Notice the amount of responsibility that falls into the hands of civil engineers.

As we see an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and given that rapid urbanisation means that more people now live in cities than in rural areas, urban planning and resilience in the built environment will become even more vital.

We might pay ‘grey’ a little more attention in future.

“By our actions we either compound disasters or diminish them”

Ban Ki Moon, UN General Secretary, Global Platform, 2011.

The podcast of the LSE Cities event can be found here.

We are currently in the early stages of a project exploring human resilience to climate change and climate-related disasters. For more information please visit the project page.

2013 is the year of science and industry here at the Royal Society, see our collaborative activities here.

Between 27^th and 30^th May 2013 the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing played host to the UK-China Frontiers of Science Symposium organised by the Royal Society and The Chinese Academy of Sciences. More than 40 early career scientists from both the UK and China made the journey to Beijing for what promised to be a highly diverse and exciting symposium exploring topics ranging from cosmic microwaves and galaxy formation through life in extreme environments and applications of ‘omics technologies to nanomaterials and water chemistry.

The Frontiers of Science series of meetings are aimed at forging new collaborative links between UK scientists at the cutting edge of research within their field and their international counterparts, providing a unique opportunity for cross-disciplinary and international collaboration. Having previously been held in many regions of the world, this time it was the turn of China to play host.

Upon arrival in Beijing, following the obligatory hotel check-in and meeting registration, Liane Benning courageously led a contingent of eager, if a little weary and indecisive, UK scientists through the metro system and into central Beijing to take in some of the main touristic delights to be found within the city. Upon arrival at Tiananmen Square we made our way towards the Forbidden City. Alas, access to this cultural highlight was – as the name might suggest – forbidden on this occasion; however the glimpses we could catch over the walls were pretty incredible. We followed this up with a visit to Tiananmen Square itself where the sheer scale was awe-inspiring. Dancing fountains were perhaps a little unexpected…

Following a short shopping session where live scorpions and starfish on sticks seemed to be the must-eat delicacy of the day, we made our way back to the Beijing Friendship Palace Hotel and the welcome banquet comprising of, by this stage, much-needed carbs and beer!

The meeting was held a little way into Beijing at the Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Day one included sessions on geo-science, astronomy and physics. Massive thanks and bravo to all of the talented speakers and organisers of these sessions, even a plant physiologist such as myself was able to understand and appreciate the talks covering complex research topics and take part in the in-depth discussions afterwards. Martyn Poliakoff treated us to one of his infamous brain teasers – We know ordinary ice floats on water, but what would happen to a cube of ice made from heavy water (deuterium) placed into a cup of ordinary liquid water? (Answer to follow)

Day one also brought with it our first experience of Chinese-style coffee.

The official banquet was held that evening and included many traditional culinary delights although, sadly, there were no live scorpions this time. Alongside the scientific discussions and collaboration building that continued well into the early hours, I learnt a few Chinese phrases thanks to our hosts and am now fully confident I could order prawns, egg, cooked rice and beer in any Mandarin-speaking country. I could probably also describe “having egg in One’s hair”.

Day two brought the chemistry and biology sessions to the floor with nanomaterials for environmental protection and the ‘omics forming the main topics for discussion. Again, the speakers in these sessions did a wonderful job in catering for the non-specialist audience and the ensuing discussions were stimulating and challenging. The policy session was very animated with lots of discussion from all delegates on the topic entitled “Reducing the impact of human-environment interactions”. Many ideas about scarcity of global resources, measures of equality, and where we as scientists should be focussing our research to ensure security of our resources into the future were discussed. The Robin Hood conundrum was raised: how do we give to the poor without robbing the rich? This resulted in an illuminating and thought-provoking discussion for all. Another Martyn Poliakoff brain teaser was posed: If steam and ice were enclosed together within the same closed system would you end up with A) hot water and steam B) cold water and ice or C) water at 50°C? (Answer to follow)

The poster sessions gave opportunity for those who did not have a speaking role to communicate their science with the rest of the group and these sessions were perhaps even more varied and far-reaching than the main sessions! I certainly gained some ideas and insights on my work that I would not have got at another more specialised meeting.

All too soon the meeting was over and it was time for us all to pack our bags and wave farewell to the land of the sleeping dragon, having learned some incredible things, eaten some very peculiar things and having met some amazing people, formed collaborative links (already collaborative meetings are being held between physiologists and cosmologists, geoscientists and biologists and there’s even whisperings of a cross-disciplinary consortium!) and friendships that will last for a long time to come.

干杯, Gānbēi!

(Answers to MP brain teasers: 1) it sinks and 2) A – hot water and steam)

These are exciting times in the world of post-2015 development – both at home and abroad.

On the international stage, the past fortnight saw the publication of the keenly anticipated High-Level Panel (HLP) report: A New Global Partnership: eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development. The report – co-chaired by David Cameron (UK), President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Indonesia), and President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia) – represents the culmination of a lengthy consultation engaging more than 5,000 organisations the world over.

For those who (perish the thought!) haven’t yet perused its 81 pages, its headline recommendation is for five transformative shifts for a new, universal development agenda, along with 12 goals on which to focus development activities. It also includes a few noteworthy calls for science, such as ‘an independent and rigorous monitoring system’, ‘a data revolution for sustainable development’ and ‘collaboration on and access to science, technology, innovation, and development data’.

Closer to home, and hot on the heels of the HLP report, the Royal Society last week hosted a PolicyLab meeting in collaboration with the British Council, SciDev.Net and UKCDS. The meeting turned to those at the heart of the post-2015 debate (namely policymakers and civil society groups) to ask what they want from a community that’s so far been largely absent (namely scientists).

The discussion was chaired by Sir John Beddington FRS, and boasted a stellar line-up of speakers. In the policy corner were Michael Anderson, David Cameron’s Special Envoy on the UN Development Goals, and Amina Mohammed, Ban Ki-moon’s Special Adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning. And representing civil society were Duncan Green, Senior Strategic Adviser at Oxfam GB, and Dominic Haslam, Steering Committee member for the BOND Beyond 2015 UK Group, and Director of Policy and Strategic Programme Support at Sightsavers.

It was a lively and thought-provoking discussion. And suggestions were wide-ranging for both what science can contribute to post-2015 development, and why it should play a central role. From identifying robust proxy indicators, to fostering a better understanding of risk, causality and uncertainty among policymakers; from exploiting new communication technologies, to delivering the ‘data revolution’ called for by the HLP report.

Following the meeting, a few distinguished guests gave me their two cents on the questions ‘Should science play a more prominent role in the post-2015 development agenda? Why/why not?’ Click on the links to hear their responses.

• Farooq Ullah, Executive Director, Stakeholder Forum
• Professor Virginia Murray, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection, Public Health England
• Dr Deeph Chana, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Security Science and Technology, Imperial College London
• Professor John Murlis, President, Environment Protection UK

A fantastic endorsement for science. But what now? Despite the well-articulated whats and whys, very little was said on the how. How exactly does science play the prominent role that many are ascribing it? And how can scientists ensure that their research is as relevant and useable as possible for development policymakers and practitioners? For more in this vein, see one scientist attendee’s thoughts here and SciDev.Net’s editorial here.

There’s no doubt the HLP report represents a key milestone in the post-2015 development journey. And no doubt that last week’s PolicyLab raised some important questions for science and development. But global deliberations on the next development framework are only just beginning. And where the role of science is concerned, it would seem there’s still some way to go.

You can watch the full PolicyLab proceedings here (a summary video will be available shortly). You can also check out #SciPost2015 on Twitter, or take a look at my Storify for a taste of the discussion. 

This meeting has coincided with a lot of coverage of this topic of late. On Wednesday the Presidents took part in a press conference with charities and other scientific luminaries to emphasise the importance of investment in the UK knowledge ecosystem. The group Science is Vital have an ongoing campaign to urge the Government to commit to a target of spending 0.8% of GDP on public funding for research; the Royal Society of Chemistry  yesterday launched Chemistry: We Mean Business, calling for a spend of 0.7% of GDP by 2020; and on Tuesday the Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Lord Krebs FRS, wrote to the Chancellor, urging him to retain the ringfence for science spending, increase investment, and publish a long-term investment framework for science, innovation and skills. Submissions to the spending review from manufacturing groups (EEF), the CBI (Director of Policy, Katja Hall, spoke about the importance of investing in science on the Today programme last week), university groups (eg the Russell Group) have all called on the Chancellor to protect and enhance funding for research and innovation in the spending review for 2015-16 due to be announced on 26 June. The Academies have articulated their case for investment in the recent statement Fuelling Prosperity, and a letter to Professor John O’Reilly FREng, the DG for Knowledge and Innovation at BIS.

George Osborne yesterday gave hints that this might all be getting through as decisions over spending come to a head over the next couple of weeks. Speaking at the topping out ceremony for the Francis Crick Institute in London yesterday afternoon, he said, “I think if you listen to what I’ve been saying today about the importance of science, how it’s a personal priority for me, I think you can read between the lines that I’m going to do everything I can to make sure Britain has a bright scientific future.”

But why does this all matter? On the face of it, there is a lot of clamour for what is, after all, only a one year settlement for 2015-16. Well, as Osborne himself pointed out yesterday, this is not simply about a one year deal. The Academies and others have long called for a long term investment framework for research (as well as Fuelling Prosperity, see also The Scientific Century for the case made in 2010). 2015-16 can set a baseline for future funding, and also set a trajectory and vision for ongoing investment; Osborne has made science a personal priority ‘not just in the short term but in the long term too.’ Discussions yesterday with the Academies and others were what we hope might be the beginnings of something like a sustainable, long-term strategy for research.

In 2010, when the science budget was set at flat cash, having been threatened with significant cuts, William Cullerne Bown of Research Fortnight gave David Willetts flowers. It may not be time to head to the florists just yet, but the Chancellor is making encouraging noises about the future prospects for funding research, in both 2015-16 and beyond. We look forward to finding out more on 26 June.

The cost of damage generated by natural hazards is increasing by the decade. In 1975, estimates of yearly damage caused by natural hazards lay at around US$10 billion. In 2011, this figure had increased to around US$400 billion. Given these figures it seems intuitive that increasing disaster risk should represent a growing problem for the economic and business community. Exploring this relationship between businesses and disasters was the focus of the new Global Assessment Report (GAR) on Disaster Risk Reduction ‘From shared risk to shared value: The business case for disaster risk reduction’, showcased at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction last week.

The impacts of disasters on businesses are both direct and indirect. Direct impacts can be inflicted through damage done to factories, offices and other facilities. Indirectly, businesses can feel the effects of disasters through the damage to infrastructure and systems those businesses depend upon, for example, through damage done to supporting energy and transport networks. There are also wider impacts: negative effects on business image and reputation, loss of market share and other macroeconomic effects. In today’s interconnected global economy, a business can be affected by disasters even if it is not itself located in a hazard prone area. In the past few decades supply chains and markets have become increasingly globalised and the disruption of one link in the chain can have regional and global impacts that propagate through the network.

Although many businesses are concerned about a range of corporate risks, few consider the risk posed by natural hazards. Even in high-risk regions, competitiveness indices and business forecasts rarely mention disaster risk. When companies are investing they often do not consider how hazard prone an area is or whether the area will be able to recover quickly following a disaster. On the other side, cities and countries, competing for investment, have no incentive to tell investors about risks from natural hazards. These tendencies lead to a trend of risk-blind investment. Major institutional investors, such as pension funds, often do not think about such risks in a structured way.

There are some signs of positive change. Investments in disaster risk management are beginning to be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen resilience and competitiveness, rather than as a cost. Some institutional investors are starting to explore regulatory and voluntary actions to make risks more visible. There are an increasing number of initiatives to model disaster risk and ensure that accurate risk data is available for companies to incorporate into their investment decisions. In addition, local governments and businesses are forming alliances to more effectively manage disaster risk. A growing number of countries are reforming legislation, policy and institutional frameworks to address disaster risk. But gaps still remain between policy and implementation. There is still some way to go.

How widely these positive trends propagate will have huge impacts for the future. Over the next couple of decades trillions of dollars will be invested in urban infrastructure. Around 70 – 85 percent of this investment will be made by the private sector. Whether this investment comes in the form of ‘resilient’ investment, or not, will have a huge impact on how vulnerable people and businesses are to future natural hazards. As the new global framework for disaster risk reduction is negotiated for 2015 it will be important to ensure it’s designed so that both governments and businesses are enabled in their management of disasters.

Because one blog post on disasters this week simply wasn’t enough…

Here – in a mere six minutes – Karen Pierce, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the UK Mission to the UN, outlines the UK’s example-setting commitment to disaster risk reduction (DRR) both nationally and internationally.

And there’s plenty to be proud of.

For one thing, there’s the UK’s willingness to be the first country to have its DRR policies peer reviewed, and its plea for other countries to follow suit. Then there’s DFID’s commitment to building disaster resilience into its 28 country programmes by 2015, and Secretary of State Justine Greening’s co-chair role in the Political Champions Group for Disaster Resilience. What’s more, the UK is also joining the dots between DRR and the wider post-2015 development agenda (introduced here), and placing its emphasis on helping the most vulnerable.

But one theme that pervades Ms Pierce’s words – and one that has dominated recent DRR discussions – is multiplicity. The key to effective DRR, many believe, is the consideration of multi-hazards (health-related, weather-related and geophysical) at multi-scales (local, national and international), involving multi-sectors (governments, NGOs, the private sector, academia and civil society) and multi-approaches (development work and humanitarian assistance).

There are times when throwing everything but the kitchen sink at a challenge is counterproductive. But when it comes to the complex task of reducing the risk of disasters globally, it seems a multi-faceted approach has its merits.

The UK might not be sitting in prime hurricane territory, on a tectonic boundary, or predominantly below sea level. But it certainly is sitting up and taking note of the importance and multi-faceted nature of DRR.

What do avatars, white lies and poor statistical analysis have in common?

They were all covered in the 3^rd World Conference on Research Integrity which was held in Montreal on 5-8 May 2013. I was lucky enough to attend and hear a range of interesting speakers give their thoughts on research integrity, or more to the point when researchers have a failure of integrity!

The focus of the conference was on empirical studies, but also included case studies, such as researchers under investigation by the US Office for Research Integrity who had gone to the trouble of inventing people, not just fabricating data but fabricating whole identities. One researcher had even hired actors to appear in court as his colleagues – he told them it was a mock trial!

This is the Stapel end of the spectrum though, where it is clearly fraud, but there are also problems at the other end of the spectrum. Some presenters referred to this as misbehaviour, rather than misconduct, and this is where the culture of science comes under scrutiny. Apparently the pressure to publish is causing researchers to get sloppy about their statistical analysis, be a bit selective in the data they present and not repeat their experiments to prove the effects are real. This was brought home by Veronique Kiermer from Nature who talked about the number of corrections that they have to publish because of sloppy work by researchers.

There were also presentations by John Ioannidis and Daniele Fanelli, who are almost household names in research integrity literature.

John Ioannidis suggested we need to end our love affair with large effect sizes and improve our reporting practices, which is an apt message from the author of the most accessed publication on PLoS Medicine – “Why most published research findings are false”.

Daniele Fanelli was again questioning the evidence base for the actions taken to prevent research misconduct and also reminded us that the increased retraction rate is not a sign of a problem but the solution.

Possibly the most provocative contribution was from Dan Ariely, who presented his work on dishonesty. His experiments uncover some uncomfortable truths. Firstly, we all lie … a lot … and this result has been found all over the world, so we ALL do it. Only little lies though, as we all still like to think of ourselves as good people, well until we don’t. Apparently a person will have the same low level of dishonesty as the rest of us but then will suddenly have a marked and sustained increase, known as the “what the hell!?” effect. And how do you bring them back from their dishonesty spree? Confession. It turns out that giving them a chance at a clean slate returns them to pre-effect levels.

So how do ensure research integrity? It might come back to acknowledging the fact that researchers are human like the rest of us and we need to create a system and a culture that supports researchers to act with integrity … and gives them a way to rehabilitate so they don’t end up caught up in the lie and having to hire actors!

As the dust settles on Geneva’s International Conference Centre, in the wake of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), it’s time to reflect on what transpired. And, in particular, to reflect on the roles being assigned to science in current DRR debates.

In a nutshell? Science should be used across the entire DRR cycle: from prevention, prediction and early detection of disasters, to resilient systems for response and recovery. As part of this, science has a key role to play in providing evidence for the effectiveness of different DRR measures, thereby informing decisions about which measures should be implemented. With the frequency, scale and cost of disasters increasing globally, these are weighty roles with repercussions for us all.

But before I elaborate, a quick DRR 101… The UN’s DRR strategy (known as the Hyogo Framework for Action – or HFA – after the Japanese prefecture where it was dreamt up) runs from 2005 to 2015. With less than two years till its expiration, the international community is rallying around the process to agree its successor – the (imaginatively named) HFA2. As part of this process, a Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (STAG – yep, another acronym!) has been assembled. And in a flagship event during the Global Platform, the STAG launched its vision for making science useful, useable and used in DRR by 2015.

To any believer in ‘the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity’, the STAG’s latest report makes for a rousing read.  It argues that robust science for DRR is essential for a resilient planet, and that the widespread integration of science into DRR policy should be a global priority. A few nuggets from its pages and launch event are as follows:

‘Science must become part of the mainstream fabric of HFA2, rather than remaining on the periphery’

‘[DRR] sits at the interface of policymaking, engineering and scientific research, and requires a close and continuous exchange among these fields in order to provide effective and durable solutions’

‘science can play an essential role in… uncovering new ways to prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters and determining which technologies are most effective in reducing disaster risk’

‘When setting policy, decision-makers need to examine the merits of each possible risk reduction measure and decide, based on the evidence, whether or not investment in enhanced resilience is justified’

On these final two points, the STAG’s vision represents a refreshing step-change. Most ‘science for DRR’ discussions I’ve been party to in recent months have focused on how science can help in getting things done (eg. ‘it can help build this dam’). But what the STAG adds is that science can also help in deciding what should be done in the first place (eg. ‘it can help us decide whether to build this dam’).

The idea that science should inform which DRR measures are opted for seems to me an obvious, albeit generally under-articulated, one. And this is exactly the sort of idea that our newly launched policy project aims to promote. By critically analysing the evidence base for one suite of DRR approaches – those based on ecosystems – we hope to shed light on how effective these approaches are in different circumstances. This analysis should ultimately inform decisions around whether and how such measures are implemented. A prime example, we hope, of science informing sound DRR decision making.

For further details, take a look at our regularly updated project pages and our statement for the Global Platform. And to sample some of the buzz around the Global Platform more generally, try #gpdrr13 on Twitter.

The Lords Science and Technology Committee’s evidence session forms part of the debate around the economy, public investment in science and the current spending review where the Royal Society is playing a leading role. Earlier this week we published a joint response to the recent Government consultation on science funding along with the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Academy. This follows a statement by the UK national academies on research and growth that led to discussion on the Today Programme between the Royal Society’s President, Sir Paul Nurse, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Dr Vince Cable.

The core messages of the both the joint letter and the joint statement are simple, for UK research to maintain its strength and do even better Government should:

• Build a stable ten year investment framework for research, innovation and skills that should sit at the heart of its emerging industrial strategy and plans for growth.
• Commit to increased investment in research and innovation to keep pace with other leading scientific nations.
• Secure the ring fencing of the science budget and continues to increase investment in research capital.
• Ensure that research continues to be at the heart of evidence based policy making across Whitehall.
• Create a world class research and innovation environment that is attractive to talent, collaboration and investment from industry and overseas.

Research and innovation helped make the UK an economic powerhouse during the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. To escape our present economic troubles bold leadership is required now to make the UK the best place in which to conduct world class research and innovation.