NERC has invested £25 million in a host of high risk, high reward research projects to tackle critical environment challenges
UK RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
NERC has invested £25 million in a host of high risk, high reward research projects to tackle critical environment challenges.
The 44 projects cover the full spectrum of environmental science including geology, atmospheric science, biodiversity and ecology.
The research will, for example:
- improve our understanding of volcanic activity such as eruptions a lava flows
- age the Earth’s solid inner core
- investigate historic mass extinction events
- predict future changes to carbon storage and biodiversity of the amazon rainforest
- study new microbes capable of consuming the powerful methane greenhouse gas
- Establish which species are the most and least resilient to environmental changes
Lasting 3 to 4 years, the projects have received up to £1.3 million to conduct the research, which is a key part of NERC’s investment portfolio.
Professor Sir Duncan Wingham, Executive Chair of NERC, said:
“This investment supports researchers’ curiosity and imagination to enable discoveries that unlock new knowledge. The studies will tackle some the most critical unanswered questions about our planet.
“By supporting high risk, high reward environmental science, we are harnessing the full power of the UK’s research and innovation system to tackle large-scale, complex challenges.”
Further information
The projects are:
Explosive-effusive volcanic eruption transitions caused by pyroclast sintering
Fabian Wadsworth, Durham University
£830,468
NERC-NSFGEO Community And Structural Collapse During Mass Extinctions (CASCaDE)
Alexander Dunhill, University of Leeds
£730,589
Ian Main, University of Edinburgh
£799.940
Hydrothermal controls on caldera explosivity
Isobel Yeo, National Oceanography Centre
£990,558
Tracing volatile cycling during progressive subduction in the Mariana Forearc
Catriona Menzies, Durham University
£742,120
SCREED: Supergene enrichment of carbonatite REE deposits
Martin Smith, University of Brighton
£799,992
Palaeomagnetic field behaviour in the Palaeozoic and the hunt for inner core birth
Andrew Biggin, University of Liverpool
£802,901
Stuart Gilfillan, University of Edinburgh
£799,995
DV3M: Deforming Volcanoes with Dynamic Magma-Mush Models
James Hickey, University of Exeter
£777,705
Magmatic volatiles in the fourth dimension
Margaret Hartley, University of Manchester
£797,938
Christopher Hughes, University of Liverpool and Daniel Jones, NERC British Antarctic Survey
£863,794
FUTURE-FLOOD: New estimates of evolving UK flood risk for improved climate resilience
Elizabeth Kendon, University of Bristol
£798,313
Silicon CycLing IN Glaciated environments
Katharine Hendry, NERC British Antarctic Survey
£999,535
David Rippin, University of York
£710,619
Humid heat extremes in the Global (sub)Tropics (H2X)
Cathryn Birch, University of Leeds and Christopher Taylor, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
£871,562
Enhanced carbon export driven by internal tides over the mid-Atlantic ridge (CarTRidge)
Jonathan Sharples, University of Liverpool, Joanne Hopkins, National Oceanography Centre, Alberto Naveira Garabato, University of Southampton, Alex Poulton, Heriot-Watt University
£1,325,572
A mising link between continental shelves and the deep sea: Addressing the overlooked role of land-detached submarine canyons
Mike Clare, National Oceanography Centre, Rob Hall, University of East Anglia
£902,207
Waves, levees and impact pressures in snow avalanches
Nico Gray, The University of Manchester
£564,284
Simulating UNder ice Shelf Extreme Topography (SUNSET)
John Taylor, University of Cambridge, Paul Holland, NERC British Antarctic Survey
£872,431
David Lowry, Royal Holloway, University of London
£815,196
Peter Nienow, University of Edinburgh
£611,281
Towards Maximum Feasible Reduction in Aerosol Forcing Uncertainty (Aerosol-MFR)
Jill Johnson, University of Sheffield
£692,793
Next-Generation Modelling of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
David Al-Attar, University of Cambridge
£449,140
RIFT-TIP: Rates of Ice Fracture and Timing of Tabular Iceberg Production
Oliver Marsh, NERC British Antarctic Survey
£1,093,961
Bridging theory to reality in projections of the Asian and West African monsoons (Bridge)
Ruth Geen, University of Birmingham
£766,535
The End of the Amazon Carbon Sink? (AMSINK)
Oliver Phillips, University of Leeds
£799,835
DMSP synthesis via a novel enzyme in cyanobacteria and diverse bacteria
David John Lea-Smith, University of East Anglia
£606,000
Integrating and predicting responses of natural systems to disturbances
Roberto Salguero-Gomez, University of Oxford
£799,513
Identifying novel microbial drivers to mitigate atmospheric methane emission
Laura Lehtovirta-Morley, University of East Anglia
£565,406
Jos Barlow, Lancaster University
£799,960
Recovery pathways for lake ecosystems
Peter Langdon University of Southampton
£799,839
Role Specialization and plasticity at the origin of eusociality
Jeremy Field, University of Exeter
£526,150
Ian Bull, University of Bristol
£799,329
Environmental and ecological drivers of tropical peatland methane dynamics across spatial scales
Nicholas Girkin, Cranfield University
£766,062
Philip Wookey, University of Stirling
£799,634
A Novel Testing Paradigm to Identify and Manage Multiple Stressor Impacts on Wildlife
Frances Orton, University of the West of Scotland and Claus Svendsen, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
£859,965
What happens to the green stuff? Applying a novel zoogeochemical lens to ecosystem nutrient cycling
Kate Parr, University of Liverpool
£770,297
Mitigating Microbial Hazards – Eliminating HABs risks in salmon farms
Linda Lawton, The Robert Gordon University
£797,321
Amy Pedersen University of Edinburgh
798,990.00
Richard Twitchett, The Natural History Museum and Paul Bown, University College London
£799,297
Was A Cold-blooded Strategy Key To Crocodile Survival Across Mass Extinctions?
Philip Mannion, University College London
£555,868
The role of structural variants in rapid adaptation
Laura Kelly, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew
£790,303
A palaeontological solution to the origin of the vertebrate pectoral girdle
Martin Brazeau, Imperial College London
£544,334
Why did we start Fermenting cereals? A molecular dissection of Ancient Bread and Beer making (FABB)
Mark Thomas, University College London
£639,908
Lots of pure research there. Looks good.
I wonder what they usually fund if they regard those as high risk?
Think of the vast rewards obtainable from
“Palaeomagnetic field behaviour in the Palaeozoic and the hunt for inner core birth“
Maybe the biggest rewards will come from the spin-off benefits of the time machine they’ll need to pull that off.
I’m revealing my STEM bias, but pure research is worthwhile for its own sake. The total amount of money involved is pitifully small, in the greater scheme of things.
It’s not that I object to pure research by any means OC, but to the way it has been “sold”—as somehow a longshot bet that could pay off massively. Developing proxy evidence that points to when the inner core solidified may be worthwhile for a more complete understanding of the earth.
In my obtuseness I fail to see the high reward side of the equation. The high risk in a financial sense of spending money and getting nothing in return is easy to envision here.
Yes, the “high risk, high return” hype is silly.
To some extent it may have some validity in the long term (eg quantum mechanics, relativity, electricity), but pure research shouldn’t be about medium (applied research) or short term (development) payoffs.
I dunno… every title seems to indicate the researcher has first bent the knee to Catostropic Anthropgenic Global Warming and the goal of every one of these projects is only to prove It’s Worse Than We Thought.
Looks like a lot of my tax money being spent on bullshit research.
High risk?
“”Magmatic volatiles in the fourth dimension””
Money for nothing of use?
I don’t they mean the same fourth dimension as Star Trek. Sadly.
I’d like to search for the elusive unicorn around Fiji, Bali, etc. Just think of the reward if one were captured.
Well, as far as I’m concerned, that’s £797,938 wasted on a personal whim.
What’s the fourth dimension?
Ten past two….. Saturday 20th May.
Don’t talk such rubbish, strat. Margaret Hartley is getting 797,938 quid from that. Very useful to her.
Plus the Fourth Dimension – coolio!
What is “high risk” about any of those studies? Why would they be described in this way?
saying that adds prestige points to the researchers- and helps their funding
There’s a high risk people will find most of this research ridiculous, pointless and useless, and resent so much tax money spent on it?. It also has the potential, should scientific rigour return, any and all charlatanry will be exposed, and their only claim to relevance, their reputation, ruined.
I shall definitely look into some of the more interesting-looking ones, though I have to concur with redviper above.
“There’s a high risk people will find most of this research ridiculous, pointless and useless, and resent so much tax money spent on it?.”
That would make sense. That’s the only high risk I can see.
They want a result within four years. That’s high risk for the researchers.
If they come up with nothing of value they are exposed.
Normally academia only requires papers to be published, not papers with actual meaningful results.
A humongous search for garbage, minutia, irrelevance, = confusing information with knowledge and reinforcing the magical thinking and propaganda.
Also empire-building and nice cushy jobs inside Ivory Towers.
One example, The Uni of Leeds submission “The End of the Amazon Carbon Sink? (AMSINK)
I point you to, attached here and now disappeared from NASA, an original image of what the CO2 Sputnik saw in Sep 2014
Look carefully at where the big forests are and you’ll see an abundance of CO2, where it’s not supposed to be,…
….and a dearth of CO2 where it is supposed to be (the industrial North and cities – even China doesn’t show too well)
Compare what you read in as an assertion made in the Leeds submission
i.e. Quote: So far intact Amazon forests have provided a huge ‘sink’ for carbon, slowing climate change.
what the he11 is going on here
And so the battle against evil Carbon Dioxide is seen to be transferred to evil Methane!
Global Warming Potential (Number of times more powerful than CO2)
of CH4 over the years:
FAR 1990 GWP 63
SAR 1995 GWP 56
TAR 2001 GWP 62
AR4 2007 GWP 72
AR5 2013 GWP 85
AR6 2021 GWP 82.5
But climate science NEVER tells us how much methane will run-up global temperature. Media reporters and bureaucrats never ask, So virtually nobody knows. Most estimates from various posts here at WUWT are less than 0.1°C by 2100.
A battle against microbes. You might be interested in this:
https://insidecires.colorado.edu/rendezvous/uploads/Rendezvous_2023_8406_1683820312.pdf
makes me think of how Brits say me-thane (sounds funny to me) and we Yanks say meth-ane
Yeah, but you Yanks make a laboratory sound like a toilet 🙂
Why did we start Fermenting cereals? Because we didn’t have any grapes. Can I have my £600k please. Or do I have to mention climate change? Perhaps we didn’t have any grapes until.the Roman Warm Period.
The Minoans did…
…and they made beer, I’m pretty sure.
I think the Egyptians did as well.
Will they be able to turn peas into beans?
“By supporting high risk, high reward environmental science, …”
Translation: We will funnel lots of money towards projects that offer no visible return on a human’s timescale.
Most environmental science is just a hobby or living for people who like the outdoors and fluffy animals. We already know much of the risk of building on an active volcano or a flood plain. The return is not building there.
What new high risk and high return is generated by these projects? (PS Some of my best friends have been vulcanologists.)
I know someone who once met Leonard Nimoy, does that count?
I think it’s a mostly British spelling. The Vulcanologist I knew best described herself as such.
What do the Brits know about the English language? They are simply atrocious spellers!
For a moment there I was afraid they might be wasting money.
Yeah, me too. Until I saw we are going to learn about climate change by analysing the turds of extinct bug species. I knew there was a way to end this runaway overheating terror of spoilt millionaire brats bored with video games and in need of something that looks like a job.
Looks like a quarter of these are computer games. For the rest, if done correctly, the field studies could get good data that will then be massaged into something that supports the going-in position. Then someone here will have to actually analyze the supplemental materials for raw data and statistical shenanigans to show it is really the same as it ever was and the sky is not falling after all.
Looks like a lot of boondoggles to support otherwise unemployable academics.
Somehow, I opened one of those links, and it is a CIRES poster explaining some theory on methane metrology. The language reminds me of that time congress was forced to discuss standardising Pi to 3.0 to facilitate the squaring of the circle, I think it was?
Well, Mr. Moderator, I’m not sure the point, as you gave no commentary.
The simple reality of grants under $3M, especially under $1M, is they are welfare efforts for grad students. The list was too esoteric to be concerned with, as each is essentially some researcher’s thesis or get-by livelihood. I won’t complain about that, except to note it is quite inefficient.
It is bothersome to see them called “high risk, high reward.” Some are dangerous, most are worthless, and none will provide reward worth considering on the whole. Oh well.
The first couple sound useful, though I’m not sure what the second one is about.
After the 3rd, they go downhill really fast.
“Invested” 25 million?
”High risk” – meaning low probability of learning anything useful.
”High reward” – meaning good pay for useless academics and their students.
It is always amusing to read the latest spin that a marketing and communications office can concoct about otherwise mundane topics. Gotta keep those graduate student stipends flowing so that they can go on to become PhD shoe salesmen. Clearly this world has a super abundance of over-educated do nothings. In my administrative role in higher education, I regularly encounter young faculty-career hopefuls whose hopes have been quickly dashed on the rocks of the “system,” then having to retool to find real, meaningful employment outside of academia.
Most of the domestic jobs outside of operations, maintenance and services are in primary production (minerals; energy; agriculture), while design and manufacturing jobs are outsourced/offshored to Asia. Meanwhile, hopeless Western girls think they are boys, boys get their sex from the Internet, pets are now their children, and fewer are marrying if at all until their biological clocks are running out.
We are witnessing and living through the rapid, deliberate collapse of Western civilization.
What is pure research and why is it good.
From the abstract:
As large as 2.9! OMG!
According to the University of Liverpool, a 2.9 magnitude earthquake is the same as dropping a 1kg bag of flour from a height of 1m (2.2lbs/3’3″ for the metrically challenged 😉 )
Looks to be lots of “High Risk” ‘Zero Reward‘ research.