Category Archives: Soapbox

Conflicted about cost-benefit analysis of international conferences

3 Replies

Decorative image of an aircraftLast week I wrote about my stimulating experience of attending a conference in Orlando, Florida and presenting our recent research to the experimental mechanics community for the first time in four years.  Whilst there, I was conscious of the ecological footprint of my trip – the venue was making extensive use of single use plastics on a scale that surprised me.  However, my trans-Atlantic flight had an order of magnitude larger impact.  It is difficult to find a reliable estimate of the carbon emissions for a return flight between the UK and Florida but 1,267 kg CO2 from the Guardian newspaper website lies between a lower bound estimate of 856 kg CO2 from iata.org and and an upper bound of 2,200 kg CO2 from myclimate.org.  This is equivalent to about one-sixth of my annual domestic carbon footprint of 9,000 kg CO2 using the calculator on the World Wildlife Fund website.  The UK average footprint is 9,300 kg CO2/capita and the global average is 6,300 kg CO2/capita.  The question is whether it is justifiable to generate additional emissions to attend a research conference?  The prime motivation of the research that I presented is to support the development of aircraft which are lighter with less embedded carbon and use less energy while also having a longer useful life.  Ultimately, supporting the aviation industry to achieve its target of zero-net emissions by 2050.  The carbon emissions of the global aviation industry in 2021 were 720 Mt CO2 [see IEA report]; hence, if my research contributes towards one hundredth of a percent reduction in these emissions then this would be 72,000 kg CO2/year.  It seems reasonable to cause a tenth of this annual saving each year (7,200 kg CO2/year) for the next ten years in order to deliver the required technology, i.e., committing one year’s savings to achieve an annual saving in perpetuity.  The problem is that I do not have a reliable estimate of the carbon footprint of my research activities.  I supervised an MSc student a couple of years ago who conducted a carbon audit of the School of Engineering and estimated the carbon emissions due to research alone to be 61,531 kg CO2 excluding heating, lighting and travel.  My group might be responsible for 10% of these emissions, i.e., about 6000 kg CO2; hence, adding about 1,200 kg CO2 to interact with other researchers at a conference seems reasonable and within a budget of 7,200 kg CO2. However, it is difficult to find reliable data to use in estimating carbon emissions for these activities and so perhaps the key conclusion is that we need more and better carbon audits to allow more informed decision-making.  In the meantime, perhaps attendence at an international conference once every four years is sufficient.

Image: Tayeb Mezahdia

Busman’s holiday

Leave a reply

Decorative image of fountain and palm treeA couple of weeks ago, I travelled to my first international conference following the pandemic lockdowns.  It was stimulating to hear presentations from well-established researchers who I had not seen in person for four or five years and to meet new researchers who had joined our community since 2019.  It was exciting to present our own research to an international audience for the first time and get instant feedback on it.  Of course, it helped that we met in Orlando, Florida.  If a change is as good as a rest then I had a four day rest from my usual work routines.  You could call it a holiday in the sense that a holiday is a day of festivity during which we celebrate in a joyful or exuberant way, according to the dictionary, and I felt we joyfully celebrated our research.  I gave three presentations on our work on low-cost, real-time crack monitoring described in ‘Seeing small changes is a big achievement’ on October 26th, 2022; on additive manufacture of reinforced flat plates (see ‘On flatness and roughness’ on January 19th, 2022); and on a further development of the research described in ‘Less certain predictions’ on August 2nd 2017.  Listening to other speakers caused my own thoughts to wander and I found myself using my phone as a mental prosthetic or expert system [see ‘Thinking out of the skull’ on March 18th, 2015] to provide me with information about definitions, to remind me about previous research, both ours and other people’s, as well as to refresh my memory on previous ideas via this blog [see ‘Amplified intelligence’ on January 4th, 2023].  Susan Greenfield, feared that such devices and activity might lead to formation of smaller neuronal assemblies in the brain and consequential loss of creativity [see ‘Digital hive mind’ on November 30th 2016]; instead, I found myself making faster connections and creating new ideas for future research.  However, I recorded them, as Leonardo di Vinci would have done – in my notebook!  My excuse is that my phone was too busy being an expert system and writing my notes by hand allowed my brain to connect the fragments of ideas and thoughts into some sort of coherency [see ‘Space between the words’ on July 6th, 2022].  Besides writing four posts for this blog in as many days, I have a list of new ideas to accelerate existing projects and start new ones.  So, whilst post-pandemic I will not be returning to business as usual in terms of international travel, a small number of infrequent trips would appear to be worthwhile, especially if our research helps move our economies towards their zero emissions targets.

Image: photograph from entrance to conference hotel.

Addressing societal challenges by engaging 100% of society’s intellectual capital

1 Reply

Decorative photograph of author's research groupToday is International Women in Engineering Day (INWED).  I have written previously about the lack of progress in achieving gender equality in the engineering profession in most Western countries (see ‘Reflecting on the lack of women in engineering’ on March 16th 2022) and the seismic shift in attitudes required to increase the number of women in engineering at all levels (see ‘A big question for engineers’ on June 8th, 2016).  I can see signs of change locally.  My research group has hovered around an equal number of men and women for some years.  In the School of Engineering in Liverpool four women have been promoted to be professors in the last four years – though at a reception following an inaugural lecture given by one of the pair of women who were the first female professors in the School, I was gently admonished by a senior female colleague in another school about why it had taken so long.  Of course, she is right.  Progress is very slow and we need to do better.

Simone de Beauvoir wrote in her book, The Second Sex first published in 1949: ‘Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with absolute truth.’  More than seventy years later, this still appears to be true, at least in the engineering profession who are responsible for the technology everyone uses everyday.  About twenty years ago, the then President of the US National Academy of Engineering, Bill Wulf said, ‘As a consequence of a lack of diversity [in engineering] we pay an opportunity cost, a cost in designs not thought of, in solutions not produced’.  However, diversity on its own is not enough, we have to be inclusive and treat everyone equally – as we would like to be treated ourselves.  If we do not engage women in the engineering enterprise then we ignore 50% of society’s intellectual capital and we cannot hope to solve the challenges facing society, in part because we will be confused about the truth.

Thank you to my two guest editors who reviewed this post for me.

Photo: Author’s research group in 2022.

 

Reasons I became an engineer: #4

Leave a reply

Images from the optical microscope showing the tracks of bacteria interacting with a surfaceThis is the last in a series of posts reflecting on my steps towards becoming an engineer.  At the end of the previous post, I described how I moved to Canada becoming a biomedical engineer in the Medical School at the University of Calgary.  It was a brief period of my career, because shortly after I started, I was encouraged to apply for a lectureship in mechanical engineering at my alma mater which I did successfully.  So, I returned to the University of Sheffield and started my career as an academic engineer.  I continued to work in biomedical engineering, focussing initially on cardiac mechanics [see ‘Tears in the heart’ on July 20th, 2022], then on osseointegrated prostheses [see ‘Turning the screw in dentistry’ on September 9th, 2020] and, more recently, on computational biology [see ‘Hierarchical modelling in engineering and biology’ on March 14th, 2018] and cellular dynamics [see ‘Label-free real-time tracking of individual bacterium’ on January 25th, 2023].  However, the dominant application area of my research has been aerospace engineering informed by, if not also influenced by, my experiences in the Royal Navy, including flying a jet trainer aircraft shortly before leaving.  In the last decade, I have been introduced to nuclear reactor engineering, both fission and fusion, and have used them as vehicles for developing research in digital engineering [see ‘Thought leadership in fusion engineering’ on October 9th, 2019].  This biographical series of posts has described my evolution as an engineer – it was not an ambition I ever had nor did anyone push me towards engineering but I have found that my way of thinking about problems is well-suited to engineering, or perhaps engineering has taught me a way of thinking.

Image: Figure 4 – Tracks (yellow lines) of the sections (purple circles) of four E. coli bacteria experiencing: (a) random diffusion above the surface; (b) rotary attachment; (c) lateral attachment; (d) static attachment. The dynamics of the four bacteria was monitored for approximately 20 s. The length of the scale bars is 5 μm. From Scientific Reports, 12:18146, 2022.