Ben Newell - Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response

Keywords

climate risk, interdisciplinary research, climate science, behavioral science, policy impact, communication, economic analysis, environmental policy, decision-making, climate response climate change, trust in science, communication, uncertainty, public perception, research advice, interdisciplinary, personal balance

Summary

In this conversation, Ben Newell discusses his role as the director of the New South Wales Institute for Climate Risk and Response, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing climate risk. He highlights the challenges of integrating diverse fields such as psychology, law, and business to create effective climate policies. The discussion also covers the significance of clear communication in climate science, the need for economic analysis in understanding climate impacts, and the importance of engaging with policymakers to drive meaningful change. Newell reflects on the evaluation of success in climate research and the ongoing efforts to influence climate risk disclosure practices. In this conversation, Ben Newell discusses the importance of transformative change in climate action, the complexities of trust in climate science, and the challenges of communicating uncertainty. He emphasizes the need for public trust in science, particularly in controversial areas, and shares insights on navigating interdisciplinary research. Additionally, he highlights the significance of maintaining a work-life balance as a researcher.

Takeaways

The Institute focuses on climate risk and response.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial for addressing climate issues.

Different disciplines have varying perspectives on risk.

Effective communication is key to conveying climate science.

Economic analysis can bridge gaps in climate understanding.

Engaging with policymakers is essential for impact.

Success is measured by academic output and public engagement.

Building a trusted voice in climate discourse is important.

Behavioral insights can enhance policy effectiveness.

Continuous learning is necessary for improving climate risk practices. Transformative change is essential for climate action.

Trust in climate science is influenced by political leanings.

Communicating uncertainty is crucial in climate discussions.

Public trust in science varies across different fields.

The COVID experience highlighted trust breakdowns in science.

Interdisciplinary research requires balancing expertise and collaboration.

Maintaining a work-life balance is important for researchers.

Understanding different perspectives enhances research effectiveness.

The worst case scenario in climate predictions is evolving.

Scientists are still trusted sources of information by the public.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Climate Risk and Response

03:08 Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Climate Science

05:57 Challenges of Interdisciplinary Research

09:04 Communicating Climate Science Effectively

12:03 Bridging Economics and Climate Science

14:57 Policy Engagement and Impact

18:01 Evaluating Success in Climate Research

26:21 Transformative Change in Climate Action

27:24 Trust and Climate Science

28:46 Communicating Uncertainty in Climate Events

32:47 Public Trust in Science

37:04 Advice for Aspiring Researchers

40:15 Balancing Work and Personal Life

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

If you were feeling lazy, you could simply describe Ben Newell as a professor of behavioural science in the School of Psychology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. He has an impressive research portfolio focused on cognitive processes that underlie judgment, choice, and decision making. But Ben hasn't stopped there. He also wanted to apply the insights of his expertise to addressing big picture societal concerns. That's why he's also the director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response. Here he drives a truly interdisciplinary agenda, pulling together experts from behavioral science, climate science, economics, and governance to address the risks and opportunities of climate change. And with this work, the Institute guides action. Ben doesn't want to just find out interesting things, he wants to help us all do something with them. I took a lot from my conversation with Ben and through much of our chat I was struck by a recurring theme that I'd summarise as balance and awareness of context. Take, for instance, his advice on addressing big problems. He had this wonderful snippet, which was be voracious in trying to understand things from different perspectives. I love the use of voracious there. He stressed that getting multiple perspectives and experts together to understand and solve problems is critical if you want to move the needle. But for a research career, you need to balance this voraciousness against the contextual reality that different disciplines have different conventions and requirements about where you should publish, what kind of work you should do, and even how you should go about that work. He also added, and I love this point, it could be hard to bring something substantial to an interdisciplinary conversation when you're not bringing a discipline of your own. Balance and awareness of context. Ultimately, Ben counsels, find things that you're passionate enough about and that you want to focus your skills on, but always have a mind to where it connects with other disciplines and other broader societal issues and questions. I admit I was left wondering if this focus on balance and awareness of context is what moves him to go surfing in his off work hours, or if, just perhaps, it's the surfing itself that's influencing his approach to his work. I'm Rod Lamberts, a veteran science communicator with nearly 30 years of teaching, learning, and doing SICOM under his belt. My chat with Ben coming up next on Science with Benefits. STEM sector insights from the people who know. Ben Newell, thank you very much for joining me on this. I'm extremely keen to talk to you. How are you going?

SPEAKER_02 2:41

I'm very well. It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for the invitation.

SPEAKER_00 2:44

So first up, you're the director of the New South Wales Institute for Climate Risk and Response. Now that sounds like a big deal to me. How long have you been doing that?

SPEAKER_02 3:02

So the institute was set up uh at the end of 2023 and then really kind of got going in 2024. So we're into almost sort of three years. Okay. Um and yeah, it's it's uh it's a sort of strategic initiative of the university to bring together different researchers from different faculties uh who are working broadly on the issue of climate risk and response. So we're based in the Faculty of Science, which is where I sit. My my kind of other job is being a professor in the School of Psychology at UNSW. Um two jobs.

SPEAKER_00 3:38

So you're professor of psych and running an institute.

SPEAKER_02 3:41

Yeah. Um and the and the institute sits across Factive Science, Faculty of Business, and the Faculty of Law and Justice. And each of those different areas and disciplines bring different sorts of expertise to this broad topic of climate risk.

SPEAKER_00 3:56

Okay, so multidisciplinary, as you say, or mega disciplinary. Do you deal much beyond the three that you mentioned? Do you play with sociology? Do you play with, I don't know, arts and poetry and things? How how broad is the brief?

SPEAKER_02 4:13

Yeah, it's a good question. Um yes, in the sense that we're interested in and and work alongside, you know, also faculty of medicine, faculty engineering. There's all different but the initial focus has been across those three faculties, largely because it's it's kind of hard enough to get three faculties to decide on something, and three keeping three deans happy is enough. I don't really want to keep five or seven deans happy. So practically or pragmatically, I think there's a danger in any kind of interdisciplinary I mean, interdisciplinary approaches are are are I think fundamentally important for big problems, but there also has to be some focus within that. And I think that the climate risk area at the moment, I mean, the reason that the the that the institute came into being was largely because UNSW's had long um strength in physical climate risk, so climate scientists doing the climate science. Yep. Um, and there was an increasing perception, partly due to changes in regulatory structures. So now lots of organizations have to disclose climate risk. There's this mandatory reporting that the organizations have to go through. And so there's an increasing need for that information to be out in the business, government, public domain to understand how to use climate science to actually make decisions and to inform um you know how we're gonna live in society. And so that brings in the business side of it and it also brings in the legal side of it because of the the now sort of liability risks if you don't disclose things that might be happening um down the track. Uh, and I was brought in as someone who had worked both with business people, with climate science, with economists through this kind of judgment and decision-making lens, behavioral science lens that that's been my focus of most of my career as a way of pulling those different pieces together and thinking about what's going on. Now, there's also obviously implications for engineering, for medicine, for as you say, for arts. At the moment, we're we're focusing on that business law science nexus. But yeah, I mean it it it it can grow and grow, but I think it has to also there has to be some focus, otherwise it's uh inoperable.

SPEAKER_00 6:33

Yeah, well look, it sounds like what does you say you are it's hard enough keeping three deans happy? Yeah. Isn't it hard enough keeping one dean happy? Off the record, off the record. But um so business, law, and climate, I mean the connection to me is fairly obvious, but what I'm wondering behind the scenes is uh how strange of bed fellows are they when you actually try and operate in this this triumvirate of l let's stick more with the psychology and the decision-making and risk, etc., plus law plus business. How does that go? Does it does it go fairly smoothly, or do you find yourself standing opposite quarters of the room throwing stationary at each other?

SPEAKER_02 7:10

I mean, I it's the thing that I find really, really um exciting and inspiring about doing this this job is that you do get to sit in a room. You know, it always sounds like you're starting at the beginning of a joke, but you know, an economist, a climate scientist, and a and a legal scholar and a behavioural scientist all went into a room. But it it it is through that cross-discussion, cross-fertilization of ideas that you come to. I mean, even things like, you know, I've spent a lot of time in my career thinking about uncertainty and risk, how you communicate that, how you understand that, what that means psychologically to people. You then go and talk to a climate scientist and you talk about risk and uncertainty, they have a totally different conception of what that means within their model. You then go and talk to someone in finance about what their conception of risk is and their how they deal with uncertainty in their financial modelling, and different again. And so bringing those things together, and then actually, you know, through writing papers together, supervising students together, organizing workshops together where you bring people from those different disciplines, that's really the way that you can start to, I think, move the needle a little bit because different people start to, oh, so that's how you what you mean by that, or that's how you're trying to solve that problem. And it brings in this different perspective that that can shift things along.

SPEAKER_00 8:28

Yeah, look that that that sounds so reasonable. Sounds absolutely rational and reasonable. I have no argument at all. Um is it though?

SPEAKER_02 8:37

Well, well, and I mean, yes, you you do uh I mean I think I've been we've been fortunate in the institute that that we've we've recruited people and people have come to us who I guess share that that willingness and that desire to have those kinds of conversations that that do make you sort of take a step back and and realize that that people think about these in different in different ways. It's not an easy path necessarily. Like pursuing your own particular line of research in your own discipline is probably the way to if we're being really simple and pragmatic about it, to to to churn papers out and get research because that's the way to to establish yourself in a in a particular discipline, and that's fundamentally important as well. I think this is a this is a challenge that I see coming up in trying to um trying to certainly bring younger scholars and younger scientists, early career people into an interdisciplinary institute when you're coming from a discipline where there may be very um you know c m clearly defined rules about where you should publish and what you should do and you know this might be a bit inside baseball. But if your discipline says you've got to publish in those five journals and and that's what counts, and then you say, Well, this project involves you know multiple different disciplines, it's not going to fit in that journal, it's gonna have to go to this other one, and then the people looking at your your tenure pack say, Well, that journal doesn't count. That's that that's the hard part, and and I think that's why it is difficult sometimes, even if you have people who are passionately wanting to be involved in this kind of work, but but pragmatically saying, How is what does this look like for building my my CV? And I think that has to change fundamentally at at within universities, within society, in the way that the work's evaluated and and and thought about.

SPEAKER_00 10:43

That yeah, that sounds I'm I'm not unfamiliar with it coming from science communication. We are, by definition, I suppose, multidisciplinary, and it means it's always trying to bring people together. The argument over which research code, which are the right journals. Yeah. Argument's not fair, the utter confusion, I think, at times is a better way of putting it. But I it comes back. I'm thinking a lot about this. I I've I've played with risk and and uncertainty, etc. a lot myself as well. And I'm curious about what happens when I'll start with it. An example. Years ago, when I started writing for the conversation website, how long ago, 15 years or something. I had climate scientists coming to me and saying, I I need your help. I need to make people understand the climate science. And I'd say, Great, why? And they would, and I'm sure you've heard this before, so that they will and then insert change in behavior X, Y, and Z here. Yeah. And I'd have to say to them, Well, how much climate science are you prepared to let go of when you write about it then in order to try and encourage behavior change or at least attitude change? Yeah. And they found this extremely challenging, understandably, I'm not picking on them. This was years ago. How how how have you found that kind of thing? Like what are prep what are people prepared to leave out? How much are they prepared, notwithstanding the problems with publishing, to stay focused on the bigger goal? Because surely you've come together under you know large problems. Let's solve large problems and bring everyone to bear.

SPEAKER_02 12:03

Yeah. Yeah. And I think it's not just climate science as well. I think you get this in other in other disciplines. So to give an e a concrete example of a of a paper that we worked on uh that came out last year that led to quite a lot of not just media interest but also government interest and and and other work that's developed from it. This is work with an economist colleague, um Tim Neal, who's in in the School of Economics, but also sits in the ICRR, the Institute of Climate Risk and Response, um, and Andy Pittman, who's a very well-known climate scientist who relates to centers of excellence. And and Tim and Andy and I um worked on a project that largely came from work that Tim had done, which was looking at the economic impacts of um climate change and looking at the way that that economists think about changes in global temperature and the impact that it then has on economics. And it was a very interesting process in distilling, if you like, the the the econometrics and the difficult parts of doing the economic modeling into a message that Andy and I felt was really capturing and Tim. I mean, T so Tim came to us with this is the this is the big project, this is the way we've done it. But there's lots of different things here that for an audience that we were trying to get to was sort of too too much, too much in the in the weeds. And it was an interesting process to say, okay, what's the main message, what's the main kind of visual that that we need to to communicate that that data? And and essentially it in one sentence, the the point of the paper was that standard ways of modeling economic impacts of climate look at individual countries' GDPs and say, okay, if the temperature goes up by two degrees, what's the impact on this country's GDP? Okay. And they don't consider the kind of global weather effects of looking at how that GDP will be affected by that two degree increase across lots of other countries. Right, right, right. Which because of the interrelatedness of commerce and all of the you know, the supply chain everything is probably a bit of a naive assumption. The hypothesis that we were pursuing in the paper is that that might be one of the reasons why economic forecasts and climate forecasts seem to differ wildly in their implications for things. So you're getting economic models that say we've got a four-degree increased temperature world, but impact on GDP will be, you know, pretty small. And that seems highly implausible from any from a climate scientist sort of perspective. And it turns out that if you relax this assumption about global weather or you bring in the global weather, then the forecasts for impacts on other countries or on the world gets much more, it gets worse. So it's a bad news story, but it's uh it's it's saying, you know, here's here's how to sort of align the the analysis a little bit better. And so that took a process of of saying, okay, yes, there's all this, you know, the the way that it's done methodologically, it's very tight, it's very good, but the message that we're trying to get through is just the difference between this local and this global weather, and how do we how do we get to that point? And so and similarly with Andy coming from the the climate side, it's like, well, yeah, it's okay, you can make this assumption about the weather and then me coming in and saying, well, behaviourally, you know, how how does this actually land in terms of the way that people think about it? And it was a process that was we actually sat at that table behind me, sitting around with the data in front of us, with the visualizations, literally writing it together to make it tight and and and uh and work. And and I think it's a it was a it was a good experience and a good paper as a result.

SPEAKER_00 15:59

That's that's super important. I and what's stuck in my head from the as a comms guy is that that you you managed to get down to what is the critical message we're trying to get across, regardless of all the stuff that surrounds us in our own disciplines and our own perspectives. Yeah. Um did you come to that quite quickly? Like was that easy?

SPEAKER_02 16:15

I think it I think it was. Uh how to get that I think we knew what that that that was the message. How to get to it more directly um was perhaps uh in a in the sense of visualizing it and distilling it into a 3,000 or 4,000 word paper was was harder. Um but but the I think it was fairly clear what the main message was. And so I mean there's another another paper working on at the moment, also with Tim, um, which is looking at sort of people's willingness to pay for different sorts of climate policy. So this is a real sort of econ behavioral crossover. And again, there's different sort of methodologies that you can use that elicit people's either stated preference or revealed preference about how much they'd be willing to pay for, say, you know, an increase on eating meat or flights or electricity that comes from green sources, and you can get you can get estimates through simple surveys. Yeah. And the key message from those data are that people are much more or they're willing to pay a higher amount if they see this as part of a kind of government policy initiative where it's going to be across the board rather than it being just an individual choice where I'm sort of opting into you know just having green power for myself or whatever it might be. And there's a free rider, freeloader sort of story that that can be put over the top of that. And we're in the process of again trying to, and I've got one of my postdocs. Um this is work with Tim and a former postdoc of his, Sium Um Hanna Digga, and a postdoc of mine now, Zach Coates, who's she's from econ, he's from Psych. And and that conversation is you know how Shakespearean. Yeah, of how do you how do you get to that? And the first draft of the paper's got a lot about the economic method and the the model, and we're trying to say, well, no, the the we're not. I mean, this this is part of the problem, right? You don't want to sound elitist and or or saying my discipline's more important than your discipline. And and from a bombs guy, this is you know exactly where you are, right? Because you come into this the thing, the person wants to tell you every possible detail that they can about how they've done this. And you know, if it's 13.1%, then you can't say it's 13%, it's 13.1.1%. It definitely is an around 10 or around 15. Yeah. Um, so yeah, it's a it's a fun, it's a fun I've definitely come across that more than once.

SPEAKER_00 18:53

It's like, what do you want the gist or do you want the detail? And they're like, it must be detailed. We'll keep talking. Um so while you're talking about this, I'm thinking I'm wondering who are you doing this for? Who are you writing at, so to speak? And obviously, colleagues and academic audiences, but yeah, I assume you want to have an impact beyond that. Yeah. So who are you writing for? Who are you who are you researching and hypothesizing for?

SPEAKER_02 19:18

Well, it it I mean, so that that paper, the the one about the global weather, was published in a journal called Environment Research Letters, um, which is a uh a sort of general interest environmental, you know, quite high-impact journal. And that but we also wrote, or Tim did a great job of then translating that into an article for the conversation that you were talking about. He's then done media on um PBS in the US. It was picked up by uh an article in the in the Atlantic, but it also then filtered through to work uh in into the government. So we then got a piece of work with the Net Zero Commission, New South Wales Net Zero Commission, who then asked us to do a bit more economic analysis, which actually just came out a week or two ago, um, looking at historical costs of climate change and how that impacts people. And so I think you you're always hoping that there's a solid academic output for it, and that goes back to the building career trajectories for people. But at the same time, it it shouldn't necessarily be always in your mind that that there should also be a you know a public-facing article at the end of it, but it do I think it doesn't hurt to think about that. Where where is the the downstream implication of it because this research is all being funded by well mostly being funded by the government and it there's a there's a a need for it to get back and and to be addressing you know real significant problems that people are doing. And and that brings me back, you know, to the interdisciplinarity thing, that yeah that that's how you get that kind of impact, I think, is to is to bring in these different perspectives.

SPEAKER_00 20:57

Yeah, and I I can absolutely see that. And I yeah, I have a lot of sympathies and empathies from what you're talking about from a number of different perspectives. Um kind of moving leading from that, so policy audiences are clearly important to you guys. My question, having been around a bunch of organizations that write submissions, you know, policy submissions, etc., and want to affect policy, and there are large engines of policy development in so many different disciplines, of course you know that extremely well. Um how effective do you feel that you can actually be writing to policymakers? How how much traction do these submissions get? Or do you how much do you feel like you're just sort of screaming into the void? I'm very curious about this, not you in particular, but across the board. Because often I hear oh, we've written seven policy submissions, you know, mission achieved, and I think, really? That's and so I'm curious uh for your take on that.

SPEAKER_02 21:50

Yeah, I I mean I think that it is there there's you know there's writing submissions and there's also trying to I guess make the connections into organisations that have the ear of policymakers. So one one of the things that I've been doing over the last ten years or so is is acting as a an advisor to the behavioural economics team of the Australian government, which is a a unit which sits in Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and they think about policy from a behavioral lens. So it's the you know do you assume the rational actor model or do you assume that people have other things going on in their lives which means they might not read all the way through the document that you're trying to get them to to sign or you know and and using simple behavioral techniques to try and encourage people to do the right thing as deemed by you know the nudgy type stuff. Yeah. And my experience from from that is that it the so I'm on an academic advisory pile as a panel there's a few of us um that go and and and get embedded in some of the projects that are being developed and bring in you know the literatures that are important and the design skills that are important and and and then in that way rather than just writing a policy submission or a submission once sort of things have been decided you're a little bit more on the on the ground floor not the ground floor but you're in part of perhaps the policy cycle in a way that you're that is harder to do from just presenting your submission. Yeah yeah yeah and similarly you know I I I've been involved in advisory on things like the National Climate Health Strategy for the chief medical officer at the time and that again involved discussing being in groups talking about the kinds of things that should and shouldn't go into that into that strategy. And that again is a bit more of a I guess a interactive element rather than writing the submission sending it off getting the acknowledgement. But I it it it's something that I've become more aware of since doing this role in the Institute that the number of opportunities there are for those kinds of submissions government. And so I I wouldn't say that I'm super experienced in it but I do think that um it's a mechanism to make these organizations aware of say the existence of the institute the kinds of things that we're doing the kinds of things that we can offer and that has then led into either invitations to do work for them or attendance at the kind of workshops that we run or the forums or the education things that we're doing. Yep. And and that I think is sort of a a way of of getting that that policy development. Another way is through having internships I've got a PhD student currently who's doing an internship in the New South Wales government in the behavioural team and also the office. And that's another way of finding out what's going on getting on on how things are developing. You get your ninjas in there okay that's a very good idea.

SPEAKER_00 25:09

Helpful ninjas of course helpful ninjas very when you look at the work your centre does uh sorry institute and the and the people involved with it what what do you look at to be able to say ah we d we've done a good job there or this worked versus this didn't how do you even conceive of what worked and what didn't and how do how do you evaluate yourselves? And I I don't mean that in the most clinically boring way possible. I mean more generally how do you how do you tell when you've done a good job?

SPEAKER_02 25:36

Yeah I mean it depends on your audience again, right? It depends on who who you're trying to convince or convey to that you've done done a good job. So there's you know there's the obvious academic ones of are you publishing papers, are you getting cited? Are you getting grants? Are you getting contracts from you know industry and government and and those kinds of things there's the more uh externally facing which is have you built up a big profile on social media? Are people you know reading your your stories? Are the people that are working for you getting invites to be on the radio be on TV be on podcasts whatever to talk about what they're what what they're doing are there you know media mentions all of these things are I think ways of building profile and and a way of saying yes we seem to be at least I mean when we launched we said you know we wanted to be a trusted voice we wanted to be part of the conversation on climate risk and I think we're we're getting slowly you know building up to that point having people come to our uh our events and then saying you know this has quickly become one of the go-to events on the calendar for this for this topic that's the kind of feedback that's okay that's that's great. So I think you've got to get to that point and then if that then leads to engagement from industry and government which then leads to actual change in the sorts of behaviors that they're that they're doing that that's that's really important. And as I said earlier on about the change in the regulatory structure and on the climate risk reporting and the mandatory disclosures we're very much in a learning phase of how people are doing that disclosure process whether the disclosures that are being released are actually good in some sense whether it's shifting people's behavior in their organise I mean that the idea of it is that it's a whole framework to help people think about oncoming climate risk and how they can change their the behavior of their business or their organization one of the risks of it is that it becomes more of a compliance checking type exercise where you say okay I need to do tick tick tick and then we're done and so sort of if we can in some small way help make that into a an actual process whereby people are using it as an opportunity for for transformatory change rather than pulling back and and you know we all know that the the current climate around climate change is is is difficult. The headwinds that come from certain other parts of the world are making it tricky. Yeah um and and with the threat of you know litigation and uh people not wanting to overstate and greenwashing and these kinds of things. But again that's all part of the kinds of discussions that we can have in the Institute because we've got people working at every point of that.

SPEAKER_00 28:50

Yeah yeah that makes sense um good answer. I knew this would be interesting. The question I have next kind of weaves a couple of things together but I mean you mentioned the whole trust thing I'll put it you know in a technical sense. And I'm kind of curious I have a specific example in mind as well and I don't know whether to bring that up yet or just ask you about trust and I think I'm going to get a specific example because it's climate related. Just recently the headlines that were saying that worst case scenario now is not a thing. Like the worst case scenario is predicted we we don't have to we we can take that off the five is unlikely. Yeah yeah yeah and and like I read that and I say isn't that great news well done science for coming forward and saying so etc Others who shall remain nameless but are well known read that in a different way. Did you cop much flack for that you know the scientists therefore don't know what they're talking about, more evidence that it's all made up and all that horrible stuff. Yeah. Was there much of that?

SPEAKER_02 29:50

I I mean I think there's always there's always an undercurrent of that or or even an a a not so undercurrent of that. Interestingly enough we just yesterday in our um sort of behavioral psych climate reading group we read a paper that was about who who do you trust on climate information and and why. And it was uh you know looking at a a a a large survey that had been done internationally and you know that you get effects of political leanings. You also get people saying well I trust people that I think are like me and or family and friends you get a huge difference between people that are skeptics versus believers on you know whether to trust climate science it's kind of unsurprising. I think the issue of of trust and communicating about uncertain events is is really really fascinating. It's in fact it's the the main focus of uh of an ARC Discovery project that I'm just about to start with a colleague Abba Silosi and it's it's basically the literally the title of the grant is is um communicating uncertainty around rare events and it's that sounds excellent very good idea. And the the the the example one of the motivating examples in that is the the sort of Y2K phenomenon thing right where everyone was saying world's going to end if you don't change the digits in your computer you know we've really got to do stuff like this this is all going to fall over and then nothing happens. And did nothing happen because people actually did what they said they were going to do and lots of people went in and changed loads of code or nothing happened because nothing was going to happen. Yeah. And the climate equivalent ish sort of thing is the this cyclone's gonna hit this cyclone's gonna hit this cyclone's gonna hit oh it didn't hit yeah you guys don't know anything but we need to take all of these different actions to mitigate and to and to adapt if you don't take those and the cyclone does hit the downside the reaction then is massive right but if you build the high wall you take all the actions and nothing happens you get no thanks for it or the thing happens and you get protected from it but it's you know that so there's an asymmetry in how the the non occurrence versus the occurrence of these rare things changes the dial it changes the balance in terms of communicating about the uncertainty. Absolutely and so there's this crucial thing about how trust evolves between science, policy makers, public that interacts with the level of certainty that I'm willing to impart in my you know this thing is going to happen can't tell you where can't tell you when but it's gonna not my words yeah but it's gonna happen or the the probability of it getting more extreme is is there the likelihood of this thing happening is going up. But as you say people on peep people can take that perfectly legitimate level of uncertainty and and play havoc with it and say well this is I mean Robert Mann 10, 15 20 years ago probably I think made made this point in some really nice work you know saying that people are willfully capitalizing on I'm I'm not getting his words right, but the point was that people were taking the uncertainty in specific phenomena and extrapolating that to uncertainty about the general way in which the world is headed and and using that to undermine the arguments for doing something on climate change. And and yeah I mean I think that the the the worst case scenario thing was an interesting example of that. I was I don't know whether you're thinking of the same person but I was actually on a on a panel with with someone where this back and forth was actually playing out and it was not particularly pleasant.

SPEAKER_00 34:06

Yeah I find that very easy to believe you get used to grimacing and making it trying to look like a smile and you go ah interesting point. See you after school behind the bike sheds. Yeah exactly oh god um just briefly just a couple couple of things on the trust issue you're probably aware of this too and I'm asking everyone this because I'm fascinated by it hearing the stock standard phrase seems to be we need to restore public trust in science. I have so many questions about that one simple phrase or utterance and each word in it pretty much but I'm so I'm very curious about your perspective on that. Do you hear that much? Are you getting the per the the feeling that public trust in science, whatever that is, needs to be restored from what used to be a more previously blissful state? I mean what's what's your take on that?

SPEAKER_02 35:00

Yeah I I I it's I mean it there's so much in trying to answer that question, right? Does public trust in science mean science across the board or does it mean science in areas that are controversial? Yeah. And I you know or by science do you also mean engineering, you know the boring sorts of things about well, you know, do you question the people that build the bridge or build the aircraft before you get on it you know that's the product of science. Yeah yeah it's physics climate science is physics you know or maths it's the same why why and there's obvious reasons why it's contentious it's it it has direct implications on how I want to live my live my life I I mean I I was talking to a colleague the other day who was throwing his hands up in the air and saying you know we're in a period of of de-enlightenment or something and someone else I didn't actually hear this but someone said to me that they'd heard an interview with with Barnaby Joyce where he said yeah one nation will get rid of the Department of Climate Change um because uh they've spent billions of dollars and the temperature hasn't gone down or the temperature's still going up or something like this. And and in some ways I mean the the that's such a insert word that you could imagine I might want to say at that point thing to say.

SPEAKER_00 36:30

No I don't want you to say retail politician that's what you were going to say. Yeah exactly.

SPEAKER_02 36:34

But at the other at the other thing it's kind of a master stroke thing as well. Yeah it is because your your immediate reaction to it is uh well you know it's true for a certain value of true yeah but does that mean okay then let's get rid of the department and stop thinking that this is an issue that we need to so so in in light of those kinds of things I can see I think the COVID experience even though in Australia you know it wasn't netw it wasn't as bad as it it was in many other places and in fact I think we were generally quite compliant in in doing things but but there were situations of of of trust breakdown and it was a very unique in my lifetime situation in which science impacting public behaviour in a very direct very immediate very kind of connected way and so there was lots of opportunities for things to to go wrong um and I think there were some elements of of of distrust I mean to go back to that paper I was talking about that we were reading yesterday you still see scientists being the people that I trust the most to tell me stuff about things. That comes across in quite a lot of um analysis quite a lot of uh um surveys so I don't I don't see it as a complete undoing but and I don't and like you said you know is this a wind back to something some you know some previous time in which science was I d I don't know I don't really know. I don't know you know that a a lot of this discussion about things are getting worse well compared to what what's your paper? Where's your where what's your trajectory here? But on balance I I'd say it's probably not going in the right direction on some topics but I don't it's a I don't think it's a you know abandon hope type situation either. Well I haven't abandoned hope.

SPEAKER_00 38:33

I would hope not not in your role but sure surely you you you know your next performance review would be have you abandoned hope yes off off your hop mate just two quick things. One if someone wanted to be you or follow in your footsteps A would you say go ahead and do it and if if yes what would you suggest they do someone you know you've got a a an undergrad coming to you with bright eyed bushy toe and saying I'm going to be a professor of psychology one day or I'm gonna fix the climate anything you'd tell them to do or not do um I would say definitely if you want to do it go go for it.

SPEAKER_02 39:10

It's very rewarding I would be um open to as many different ideas as I as as I could be I would be voracious in trying to understand things from different perspectives but also and this echoes earlier discussions that we had the striking this balance between developing disciplinary single disciplinary expertise alongside interdisciplinary um projects and and and engagement is is a is a difficult thing to to navigate as an early career researcher. And I think you want to be open to it but you also you need to be bringing something to that interdisciplinary conversation that that isn't just oh I'm really interested in all these things. Yeah I mean if you you you have to get a PhD if you want to go in to be want to be a professor in most disciplines you have to you have to go that path yeah and and by its very nature a PhD usually is is at least you know constrained to be within one discipline. I mean to be really sort of simple simple about it as an institute I can't we can't enrol a PhD student. Right. The PhD student has to sit in the school that the primary supervisor is a member of yeah um and that is an indication that that's because they're they're pursuing a disciplinary track. They can have co-supervisors that sit in other departments, other schools and that's something that I strongly encourage with my own students at the moment but but there has to be that track. So I think the advice would be find the thing that you're is gonna you know be that you're passionate enough about and that you want to focus your skills in but always have a mind to where it connects with other other disciplines and just other broader you know societal issues and questions.

SPEAKER_00 41:20

Nice I I I have no I have no notes on that just finally you're not you're not only professor of psychology, head of institute etc, you're a human being um do you think about this stuff 247 or do you actually have you know guilty pleasures watching crappy TV, strange movies, are there certain podcasts you listen to, books you read and anything you're prepared to share because work life balance and all that?

SPEAKER_02 41:47

I I um I surf. Oh nice I ride my bicycle in the mountains um I ocean swim um I spend time with my wife and my three kids when they're around then most they've only got one left at home now. I d I don't I I try very hard not to work on weekends and teaching try very hard to doing a lot of heavy lifting I can hear in your tone so no I do have I do have a lot of uh a lot of other things going on. Podcast wise I was just talking to a colleague just before this saying that I I have become somewhat dangerously addicted to the rest is politics. You're not alone there are there are a lot of addicts out there that the the confession circle would be bigger than bigger than I might be needing some some uh yeah some help on that at some point I I've kind of I don't know what's that also another conversation but but yeah I because I'm originally from the UK obviously so that that that keeps me sort of connected with what's going on there in a in an interesting way. And there's a lot going on there right now.

SPEAKER_00 42:51

I was going to say let's even get to ten Prime Ministers in ten years.

SPEAKER_02 42:54

There's two months left. Yeah I think I think they've beaten Australia now right in terms of I believe so of congratulations.

SPEAKER_00 43:05

Look thank you very much I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me. Interesting as usual I finished these interviews and I think if we just had two more hours and a nice bottle we could get in deeper and deeper. It's fantastic stuff. I've enjoyed it thank you for the opportunity This has been Science with Benefit and I'm Rod Lambert. If you enjoyed the show please like, rate share. You all know the tool by now Also if there's someone you think I should talk to it might even be you drop me a line either via LinkedIn or on email rod.lambert Lambert with nest at anu.edu.au