This is a key area for us, as I firmly believe that there is not enough information flow between researchers and those who work on the land. I have described our role previously as providing a scientific bridge. What is often forgotten is that the bridge needs to have two-way traffic on it and that researchers have a lot to learn from land managers; providing the reverse flow is something unique that the Trust can bring to the party.
It is disappointing that two project applications for funding from the Natural Environment Research Council that I was supporting have failed to receive funding. One of these was headed up by Board member, Professor Steve Redpath, (Director of Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability) and was seen as a way of bringing the research, policy and practitioner communities together. The second application was to have been for a two year project to develop tools to help with the management of wildfire risk and would have built on the FIRES seminar series that I have also contributed to.
I hope that alternative proposals will rise out of these disappointments and that they will be successful. I will continue to look for opportunities where the Trust can contribute our special attributes to further research and the exchange of knowledge and experience.
Technology transfer is a growing headache. We, as a scientific community, produce outstanding research or information with a willing rural audience and then so frequently fail to execute the successful transfer of the knowledge between the two. So we build up vast repositiories of outstanding high quality peer reviewed science and the ultimate consumers still remain in the dark.
ReplyDeletePerhaps before funding research projects the 'route to market,' to use a commercial phrase, should be looked at more closely to ensure the product (the packet of information) is reaching the consumer!