Backyard bonanza: collating stats for a predator-free future

I've previously discussed how a lack of understanding of statistics can cause consumers to make poor choices, so it would seem that increasing the public's understanding of them can only be a good thing. Therefore, along the lines of New Zealand's annual garden bird survey, I decided to do a bit of citizen science. My aim was to record the highest number of each fauna species seen at one time, either actually in my garden or seen from my garden. The time frame was a calendar year, so as to take into account seasonal migrations and food availability. As an aside, it might have been easier to count flora (after all, it doesn't move very fast) but with Auckland being the weediest city in the world and my floral knowledge much weaker than my recognition of fauna, I opted for the easier option of any animal that I could see without using a microscope.

A meta-analysis released this month states that almost twenty-five percent of birds on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are being affected by climate change. In addition, with last years' announcement to make New Zealand predator-free by 2050, such surveys might be useful for locating concentrations of introduced pest species. In a way, I'm providing a guide that anyone can follow with the minimum of effort (hint, hint). So here are my results, followed by some more information:

Class/species	Native/self-introduced	Number seen
Insecta
Ant (unknown species)	Yes	Numerous
Asian paper wasp	No	3
Black field cricket	Yes	4
Bumble bee	No	1
Bush cockroach	Yes	14
Cabbage tree moth	Yes	7
Cabbage white butterfly	No	2
Cicada	Yes	2
Click beetle	Yes	2
Common bag moth	Yes	1
Crane fly	Yes	1
European earwig	No	1
Ground beetle	Yes	2
Honey bee	No	1
Housefly	No	7
Ladybird	Yes	2
Monarch butterfly	Yes	17
Shield bug	Yes	3
South African praying mantis	No	22
Tree weta	Yes	18
Arachnida
Bird dropping spider	Yes	1
Black cobweb spider	Yes	1
Black house spider	Yes	1
Daddy long-legs	Yes	3
Jumping spider	Yes	1
Nurseryweb spider	Yes	1
Slater spider	Yes	1
White tail spider	No	1
Annelida
Earthworm	No	5
Tiger worm	No	Numerous
Hexapoda
Springtail	No	Numerous
Chilopoda
Centipede	Yes	3
Mollusca
Common garden snail	No	9
Reptilia
Rainbow skink	No	2
Aves
Australasian hawk	Yes	1
Blackbird	No	2
Black headed gull	Yes	3
Eastern rosella	No	4
Fantail	Yes	2
Goldfinch	No	3
Greenfinch	No	2
House sparrow	No	14
Myna bird	No	4
Rock pigeon	No	5
Silvereye	Yes	7
Song thrush	No	1
Spotted dove	No	1
Starling	No	4
Tui	Yes	1
Mammalia
Cat	No	2
Chicken	No	1
Dog	No	1
Hedgehog	No	1
Mouse	No	1
Rabbit	No	1

The first thing that seems obvious is just how many non-native species I observed, some deliberate introductions whilst others accidentally brought to New Zealand, but all within the past two centuries.

Now for some interesting comments about how statistics can be (mis)interpreted:

1) The method I chose to order the table by could affect how easy it is to find key points of interest. Alphabetical order is familiar but is simply a well-known form of cataloging. Therefore it can be seen as a neutral form of presentation, not emphasising any particular pattern of the results. Had I ordered by native/non-native, it might have become more apparent how many of the latter bird species there are. If I had ordered all species in one list by this method, rather than in separate classes, the pattern would have been obscured again. So simply by selecting a certain order, results can appear to support a certain notion.

2) How useful is this data if it lacks supporting information? By this, I mean factors that might affect the count: Is it a common or garden (yes, that's a pun) location or an highly unusual one? Is the locale urban or rural? What are the surroundings? How big is the garden and how much vegetation is there? Is the vegetation primarily native or non-native? I could go on like for this ages, but clearly to get a more sophisticated understanding of the causes behind the figures, this information is necessary. Even then, two locations that are almost identical to a casual observer might appear profoundly different from the vantage point of say, earthworms. I will admit to (a) having built 2 weta motels and a bug motel; and (b) feeding silvereyes in winter; and (c) having made a tui sugar water feeder that has been totally ignored. Go figure!

3) Are there any other obvious factors that could affect wildlife? How managed is the location? Are chemicals such as weedkiller used or is the garden solely organic? Again, this can have a massive effect on wildlife, such as pesticides that remove insects at the base of food webs. On the one hand, if mine is an organic garden surrounding by neighbours who spray their foliage, then it could be an island of suitability in a comparatively barren terrain. But alternatively, if most of the neighbourhood isn't fauna-friendly, how likely would my garden get visited even on the off-chance by animals that can't live in the wider area?

4) Of course there's also contingency within natural selection. For example, quite by chance some species can survive on foods not native to their ecosystem. Although stick insect numbers in New Zealand were drastically reduced thanks to DDT, gardens don't need to contain their native food plants in order to support them. In the south-west of England, three species of accidentally-introduced New Zealand stick insect have flourished for decades on the likes of roses! Also, unusual events can affect populations: in this case, the two rainbow skinks appeared several months' after laying some ready lawn so I can only assume their eggs arrived with the turf, the previous five years having seen no skinks whatsoever.

5) When it comes to surveys, timing is also important. As you might expect, most of my observations took place during the day, with the only nocturnal ventures being on clear nights when using my telescope. The moths and hedgehogs were mostly seen at night, whilst had I included birds I could hear as well as see, then a morepork would have been added to the list. Again a simple prejudice, in this case sight over sound, has skewed the statistics. The large number of mantises were not adults but nymphs all hatching from a single ootheca. As for the monarch butterflies, they were a combination of caterpillars, chrysalis and adults, having appeared in much greater numbers this year than previous, despite no additional swan plants (their only food). Interesting, a clump of twenty or so mature swan plants a few streets away hasn't yielded any monarchs in any of the three stages. Presumably, predators such as wasps are responsible.

The sheer randomness of nature is exciting, but doesn't exactly help to uncover why populations are such as they are found via small-scale studies. Oh, and further to the damage invasive species have wrought on native wildlife, you may be interested to learn that none of the mammals belonged to me, the cats and dog being owned by friends and neighbours whilst the rabbit was an escapee from a dozen houses away!

6) Finally, there's the scale prejudice. Although I have a basic microscope, I didn't include such tiny wonders as tardigrades and bdelloid rotifers, even though garden moss and leaf litter respectively has revealed these wee critters. My page of nature photographs shows this prejudice, with microscopic fauna getting their own page.

So, what can we learn from this, apart from the large number of non-native species commonly found in Auckland? Perhaps that raw data can be presented in ways to obscure patterns or suggest others, should the publisher have an agenda. Furthermore, without access to highly detailed meta data, the statistics by themselves tell only a small part of the story and as such are open to wide-ranging interpretation by the reader. Therefore the next time you read about some percentage or other, remember that even without manipulation or omission, survey data is not necessarily pure, unsullied and free of bias.

Hold the back page: 5 reasons science journalism can be bad for science

Although there's an extremely mixed quality to television science documentaries these days (with the Discovery Channel firmly at the nadir) - and in stark contrast to the excellent range of international radio programmes available - the popular press bombards us daily with news articles discussing science and technology. Both traditional print and online publications reach an enormous percentage of the public who would never otherwise read stories connected to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). Therefore these delivery channels and the journalists who write material for them face an immense challenge: how to make science accessible and comprehensible as well as interesting. How well they are doing can be judged by the general public's attitude towards the subject...which is currently not that great.

In November 2016 Oxford Dictionaries stated that their Word of the Year was 'post-truth', which refers to 'circumstances in which objective facts are less influential...than appeals to emotion and personal belief.' Clearly, this is the antithesis of how good science should proceed. Combined with the enormous output from social media, which gives the impression that anyone's opinion is as valid as a trained professionals and you can see why things aren't going well for critical thought in general. Did you know that a Google search for 'flat earth' generates over 12 million results? What a waste of everyone's time and data storage! As they said about Brexit: pride and prejudice has overcome sense and sensibility. Here then are five reasons why popular science journalism, mostly covering general news publications but occasionally dipping into specialist magazines too, can be detrimental to the public's attitude towards science.

1) Most science writers on daily newspapers or non-specialist periodicals don't have any formal science training. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once pointed out that journalists have a tendency to read summaries rather than full reports or scientific papers, thus distancing themselves from the original material before they even write about it. The problem is that an approach that works for the humanities may not be suitable for science stories. We're not critiquing movies or gourmet cuisine, folks!

As an humorous example of where a lack of research has led to a prevalent error,  a 1984 April Fools' Day spoof research paper by American journalism student Diana ben-Aaron was published in 350 newspapers before the original publisher admitted that Retrobreeding the Woolly Mammoth was phoney. One of the facts that ben-Aaron made up (and still remains unknown) is that woolly mammoth had fifty-eight chromosomes. This number is now ubiquitous across the World Wide Web from Wikipedia to the Washington Post, although I'm pleased to see that the National Geographic magazine website correctly states the situation. Clearly, anyone who follows the President Trump approach that "All I know is what's on the Internet" isn't going to get the correct answer.

This isn't to say that even a scientifically-trained journalist would understand stories from all sectors: the pace of advance in some fields is so fast than no-one can afford the time to maintain a sophisticated understanding of areas beyond their own specialism. But it isn't just particular research that is a concern: general concepts and methodology can be ignored or misunderstood; whilst a lack of mathematical training can easily restrict an understanding of how statistics work, with error bars and levels of significance often overlooked or misrepresented.

Related to this ambiguity and margin for error, journalists love to give definitive explanations, which is where there can be serious issues. Science is a way of finding ever more accurate explanations for the universe, not a collection of unchangeable laws (excepting the Second Law of Thermodynamics, of course). Therefore today's breakthrough may be reversed by tomorrow's report of sample contamination, unrepeatable results or other failure. It's rarely mentioned that scientists are willing to live with uncertainty - it's a key component of the scientific enterprise, after all. Yet in the event of an about turn or setback it's usually the scientists involved who get blamed, with accusations ranging from wasting public money to taking funding from something more worthwhile. Meanwhile, the journalist who wrote the original distorted account rarely gets held responsible. As for the one-sided scare stories such as nicknaming GM crops as 'Frankenfoods', this lowers what should be a serious public debate to an infantile level extremely difficult to overthrow.

2) How many science documentaries have you seen where the narrator says something along the lines of “and then the scientists found something that stunned them”? Such is the nature of story-making today, where audiences are deemed to have such short attention spans that every five minutes they require either a summary of the last ten minutes or a shock announcement. This week I saw a chart about bias within major news organisations: both CNN and USA Today were labelled as 'sensational or clickbait'. I've repeatedly read about scientists who were prompted by journalists towards making a controversial or sensational quote, which if published would distort their work but provide a juicy headline. It seems that limiting hyperbole is a critical skill for any scientist being interviewed.

Journalists don't owe invertebrate paleontologists, for example, a free lunch but there is a lot of good professional and occasionally amateur science being conducted away from the spotlight. Concentrating on the more controversial areas of research does little to improve science in the public's eye. Even reporting of such abstract (but mega-budget) experiments as the Large Hadron Collider seems to be based around headlines about 'The God Particle' (nearly six million results on Google) A.K.A. Higgs Boson (less than two million results). Next thing, they'll be nicknaming the LHC ‘The Hammer of Thor' or something equally cretinous. Although come to think of it…

The World Wide Web is far worse than printed news, with shock headlines ('It Was The Most XXX Ever Found - "It Blew My Mind," Expert Says') and over-inflated summaries that would make even lowbrow tabloids blush. Even specialist periodicals are not immune to the syndrome, with New Scientist magazine being particularly at fault. In 2009 it published the silly headline 'Darwin was wrong' which drew the ire of many biologists whilst providing a new form of ammunition for creationists. In 2012 their special 'The God Issue' turned out to contain less than fifteen pages on religion - but then it is meant to be a popular science periodical! In this vein the Ig Nobels seem to get more attention than the Nobel Prizes as journalists look for a quirky man-bites-dog angle to convince the public that a science story is worth reading.

3) Talking of which, journalists want to reach the widest possible audience and therefore looking for human angle is a prominent way to lure in readers. The two most recent Brian Cox television documentary series, Human Universe and Forces of Nature have concentrated on stories around families and children, with the science elements being interwoven almost effortlessly into the narrative.

In print and digital formats this bias means that the focus is frequently on articles that might directly affect humanity, especially medical, agricultural and environmental stories. This puts an unbalanced emphasis on certain areas of science and technology, leaving other specialisations largely unreported. This might not appear bad in itself, but lack of visibility can cause difficulties when it comes to maintaining public funding or attracting private philanthropy for less commercial and/or more theoretical science projects.

Another method used to make science more palatable is to concentrate on individual geniuses rather than team efforts. I assume only a very small proportion of the public know that theoretical physicists do their best work before they are thirty years old, yet the seventy-five year old Stephen Hawking (whose name is now a trademark, no less) is quoted almost every week as if he were Moses. He's well worth listening to but even so, Professor Hawking seems have become a spokesperson for almost any aspect of science the media want a quote on.

4) With competition tougher than ever thanks to social media and smartphone photography, journalists face ever tighter deadlines to publish before anyone else. This can obviously lead to a drop in accuracy, with even basic fact-checking sometimes lacking. For example, a year or two ago I sent a tweet to the British paleopathologist and presenter Dr Alice Roberts that the BBC Science and Environment News web page stated humans were descended from chimpanzees! She must have contacted them fairly rapidly as the content was corrected soon after, but if even the BBC can make such basic blunders, what hope is there for less reputable news-gathering sources? As with much of contemporary business, the mentality seems to be to get something into market as quick as possible and if it happens to be a smartphone that frequently catches fire, we'll deal with that one later. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7's recent debacle is the gadget equivalent of the BBC error: beating the opposition takes precedence over exactitude.

It's one to thing to define science as striving towards more accurate descriptions of aspects of reality rather than being a series of set-in-stone commandments, but publishing incorrect details for basic, well-established facts can only generate mistrust of journalists by both scientific professionals and members of the public who discover the mistake. Surely there's time for a little cross-checking with reference books and/or websites in order to prevent the majority of these howlers? Having said that, I find it scary that a major media organisation can commit such blunders. I wonder what the outcry would be if the BBC's Entertainment and Arts News page claimed that Jane Austen wrote Hamlet?

5) Finally, there's another explanation that has less to do with the science journalists themselves and more with what constitutes newsworthy stories. Negativity is the key here, and as such science news is swept along with it. For example, the BBC Science and Environment News web page currently has three articles on climate change and animal extinctions, an expensive project technology failure, earthquake news and a pharmaceutical story. Like a lot of political reports, those concerning STEM subjects concentrate on the bad side of the fence. Unfortunately, the dog-bites-man ordinariness of, for example ‘Project X succeeds in finding something interesting' usually precludes it from being deemed media-worthy. The ethos seems to be either find a unique angle or publish something pessimistic.

One tried and tested method to capture attention is to concentrate on scandal and error: science is just as full of problems as any other aspect of humanity. Of course it is good to examine the failure of high-tech agriculture that led to the UK's BSE 'mad cow' disease outbreaks in the 1980s and 90s, but the widespread dissemination of the supposed link between MMR and autism has caused immense damage around the world, thanks to a single report being unthinkingly conveyed as rock-hard evidence.

Bearing in mind that journalism is meant to turn a profit, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at how misrepresented scientific research can be. It's difficult enough to find the most objective versions of reality, considering all the cognitive bias in these post-truth times. There are no obvious answers as to how to resolve the issue of poor quality science reporting without either delaying publishing and/or employing scientifically-trained staff. The market forces that drive journalism unfortunately mean that STEM stories rarely do science justice and often promote a negative attitude among the rest of mankind. Which is hardly what we need right now!

Devoted to dinosaurs: Joan Wiffen and the role of the amateur scientist

I was recently at a second hand book stall, browsing a first edition of Graeme Steven's Prehistoric New Zealand. The market stall owner told me that she had thumbed through the book and was amazed to learn that New Zealand had any wildlife prior to the moa. This seemingly widespread lack of knowledge about the nation's past is no doubt partially due to the small number of both practitioners and finds, although the state education system cannot be considered blameless. Still, in an age of easily-accessible information via the World Wide Web and the likes of the National Geographic Channel, such gaps do seem rather surprising.

Of course a lack of public knowledge concerning ancient life isn't restricted to New Zealand. I recall several amusing (yes, I know it sounds smug) encounters at London's Natural History Museum, where I discovered that parents of dinosaur-crazed children cannot differentiate giant ground sloths from dinosaurs, let alone bipedal carnosaurs from quadrupedal sauropods.

The poor understanding of New Zealand's past is exacerbated by the low population and correspondingly small amount of funding available. Therefore perhaps it's not surprising that amateurs have made significant discoveries, from the Hamilton Junior Naturalist Club's discovery of a giant penguin fossil at Kawhia to Joan Wiffen, the 'Hawke's Bay housewife' (an epithet that always causes me to grit my teeth) who discovered New Zealand's first dinosaur fossils and much more besides.

I've previously discussed the joys of amateur fossicking from a primarily fun aspect but also mentioned how New Zealand relies on non-professionals. The Kawhia penguin is a case in point, as it would have eroded within a year had it not been discovered. Indeed, I was recently collecting some Pleistocene marine molluscs above a Taranaki river valley, on a steep slope prone to severe flooding. These fossils had been uncovered following a landslide caused by a severe rainstorm in 2015 and would no doubt be washed away with the next one.

In addition to the lack of professionals, the discipline's funding within New Zealand has decreased over the past half century. The Marsden Fund is a key sponsor of science projects but less than 10% of proposals are successful. The obvious wider issue here is that for the foreseeable future there is unlikely to be any private funding for scientific research that isn't financially viable in the short-term; let's face it, most paleontology isn't going to earn big bucks. That isn't to say there aren't some income streams available, especially around museums, merchandise and occasionally site tourism. However, New Zealand's dinosaur, marine reptile and pterosaur remains are mostly isolated fragments, hardly likely to prove star attractions for even the most ardent dino enthusiast.

Which brings us back to Joan Wiffen. She went from a minimal secondary education (due to her father's prejudice) to an honorary science degree from Massey University - whilst still supporting the view that it is the duty of married women to do all the housework. Although she may not have actively negated the Hawke's Bay housewife appellation, the term is hardly suitable for an extremely conscientious scientist; after all, if her husband had been the team leader, he probably wouldn't have been referred to as a Hawke's Bay electronics technician!

Having recently finished reading Wiffen's 1991 book Valley of the Dragons: The Story of New Zealand's Dinosaur Woman I was struck by the obvious lack of professional expertise available in New Zealand as recently as the 1970s and 1980s. Even today, the thirty or so professional paleontologists in the country don't have their own organisation and fall under the auspices of the Geoscience Society of New Zealand. Yet I've long considered geology to be an extremely conservative discipline (think that meteorologist Alfred Wegener's continental drift hypothesis gained little traction for decades until evidence of plate tectonics was found, rather than there being any active interest in resolving the mystery) and so can do few favours to outsiders.

Therefore, Joan Wiffen faced almost complete indifference from scientists who proclaimed there were no relevant strata in which to locate dinosaur remains. Apparently someone had previously noticed reptilian bones in a Te Hoe Valley stream bed - which is what sparked off Wiffen's first expedition - but no-one had the interest or funding to follow it up. Her narrative hints at the disdain professionals felt for amateurs in general but happily this situation has changed markedly in the interim, with citizen science helping to bridge gaps in many fields. In the case of New Zealand paleontology, the notable finds by amateurs have included previously unknown species, adding to the evidence that areas of the 'lost' continent of Zealandia have been continually above water since the Mesozoic.

My recent Taranaki excursion was child's play compared to the deprivations Wiffen and co endured in their rat-infested self-built hut, not to mention funding the entire work themselves. From learning how to remove rock matrix via acetic acid (in an old baby bath, no less) to building a stereo microscope stand from a pillar drill base, the Hawke's Bay team certainly utilised classic kiwi number eight wire ingenuity.

In a pre-internet age - it took six months just to pin down the location and land owner of the area marked 'reptile bones' - gaining technical advice from foreign experts was slow and cumbersome. Ironically, in later years New Zealand professionals visited Wiffen's fossil preparation workshop to gain insight into their operation, including as to how she and her friends achieved such high standards. Clearly, her work wasn't the product of a casual dilettante but the output of a highly motivated and hard-working scientist, albeit an unpaid one.

The American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould frequently observed that his disciplines were forms of historical science, built upon a series of unrepeatable events created by the complex interaction of disparate factors. Therefore deposition and preservation - even the discovery - of fossils are unique circumstances; remains that are visible today may be little more than dust tomorrow. We owe Joan Wiffen and her colleagues an enormous debt for increasing the sum of human knowledge at their own time and expense, purely for the love of science. And if any Hawke's Bay residents want to pick up where she left off, then I'm sure both professionals and posterity would be most grateful!

O Come, All ye Fearful: 12 woes for Christmas future

This month I thought I would try and adopt something of the Yuletide spirit by offering something short and sharp (if not sweet) that bares a passing resemblance to the carol On the Twelve Days of Christmas. However, instead of gifts I'll be attempting to analyse twelve key concerns that humanity may face in the near future, some being more immediate - not to mention inevitable - than others.

I'll start off with the least probable issues then gradually work down to those most likely to have widespread effects during the next few decades. As it is meant to be a season of good cheer I'll even suggest a few solutions or mitigation strategies where these are applicable. The ultimate in low-carb gifts: what more could you ask for?

12: ET phones Earth. With the SETI Institute and Breakthrough Listen project leading efforts to pick up signals from alien civilisations, what are the chances that we might receive an extra-terrestrial broadcast in the near future? Although many people might deem this just so much science fiction, the contents of a translated message (or autonomous probe) could prove catastrophic. Whether it would spark faith-based wars or aid the development of advanced technology we couldn't control - or be morally fit enough to utilise - there may be as many negative issues as positive ones.

Solution: Keeping such information secret, especially the raw signal data, would be incredibly difficult. Whether an international translation project could be conducted in secret is another matter, with censorship allowing a regular trickle of the less controversial information into the public domain. Whilst this is the antithesis of good scientific practice, it could prove to be the best solution in the long term. Not that most politicians are ever able to see anything that way, however!

11. Acts of God. There is a multitude of naturally-occurring events that are outside of human control, both terrestrial (e.g. super volcano, tsunami) and extra-terrestrial, such as asteroid impacts. Again, until recently few people took much interest in the latter, although Hollywood generated some awareness via several rather poor movies in the late 1990s. The Chelyabinsk meteor of February 2013 (rather than meteorite, as most of the material exploded at altitude led to 1500 injuries, showing that even a small object that doesn't reach the ground intact can cause havoc. Since 2000, there have been over twenty asteroid impacts or atmospheric break-ups ranging from a kiloton up to half a megaton.

Solution: Although there are various projects to assess the orbits of near-Earth objects (NEOs), the development of technologies to deflect or destroy impactors requires much greater funding than is currently in place. Options range from devices that use just their velocity to knock NEOs off-course to the brute force approach of high-powered lasers and hydrogen bombs. However, with the cancellation of NASA's Ares V heavy launch vehicle it's difficult to see how such solutions could be delivered in time. Hopefully in the event something would be cobbled together pretty quickly!

10. Grey goo scenario. As defined by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation, what if self-replicating nanobots (developed for example, for medical purposes), break their programming and escape into the world, eating everything in their path? Similar to locust swarms, they would only be limited by the availability of raw materials.

Solution: The Royal Society's 2004 report on nanoscience declared that the possibility of von Neumann machines are some decades away and therefore of little concern to regulators. Since then, other research has suggested there should be limited need to develop such machines anyway. So that's good to know!

9. Silicon-destroying lifeforms. What if natural mutations lead to biological organisms that can seriously damage integrated circuitry? A motherboard-eating microbe would be devastating, especially in the transport and medical sectors, never mind the resulting communication network outages and financial chaos. This might sound as ridiculous as any low-grade science fiction plot, but in 1975 nylon-eating bacteria were discovered. Since then, research into the most efficient methods to recover metals from waste electronics have led to experiments in bioleaching. As well as bacteria, the fungus Aspergillus niger has been shown to breakdown the metals used in circuits.

Solution: As bioleaching is potentially cheaper and less environmentally damaging it could become widespread. Therefore it will be up to the process developers to control their creations. Fingers crossed, then!

8. NCB. Conventional weapons may be more common place, but the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by rogue states and terrorist organisations is definitely something to be worried about. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a difficult time keeping track of all the radioactive material that is stolen or goes missing each year.  As the 1995 fatal release of the nerve agent sarin on the Tokyo subway shows, terrorists are not unwilling to use weapons of mass destruction on the general public.

Solution: There's not much I can suggest here. Let's hope that the intelligence services can keep all the Dr Evils at bay.

7. Jurassic Park for real. At Harvard last year a chicken embryo's genes were tweaked in such a way as to create a distinctly dinosaurian snout rather than a beak. Although it may be sometime before pseudo-velociraptors are prowling (high-fenced) reserves, what if genome engineering was used to develop Homo superior? A 2014 paper from Michigan State University suggests both intellectual and physical improvements via CRISPR-cas9 technology is just around the corner.

Solution: If the tabloids are to be believed (as if) China will soon be editing human genomes, to fix genetic diseases as well as generating enhanced humans. Short of war, what's to stop them?

6. DIY weaponry. The explosion in 3D printers for the domestic market means that you can now make your own handguns. Although current designs wear out after a few firings, bullets are also being developed that will work without limiting their lifespan. Since many nations have far more stringent gun laws than the USA, an increase in weaponry among the general public is just what we don't need.

Solution: how about smart locking systems on printers so they cannot produce components that could be used to build a weapon? Alternatively, there are now 3D printer models that can manufacture prototype bulletproof clothing. Not that I'd deem that a perfect solution!

5. Chemical catastrophe. There are plenty of chemicals no longer in production that might affect humanity or our agriculture. These range from the legacy effects of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), a known carcinogen, to the ozone depletion causing by CFCs, which could be hanging around the stratosphere for another century; this doesn't just result in increased human skin cancer - crops are also affected by the increased UVB.

Solution: we can only hope that current chemical development now has more rigorous testing and government regulation than that accorded to PCBs, CFCs, DDTs, et al. Let's hope all that health and safety legislation pays off.

4. The energy crisis. Apart from the obvious environmental issues around fossil fuels, the use of fracking generates a whole host of problems on its own, such as the release of methane and contamination of groundwater by toxic chemicals, including radioactive materials.

Solution: more funding is required for alternatives, especially nuclear fusion (a notoriously expensive area to research). Iceland generated 100% of its electricity from renewables whilst Portugal managed 4 consecutive days in May this year via wind, hydro, biomass and solar energy sources. Greater recycling and more incentives for buying electric and hybrid vehicles wouldn't hurt either!

3. Forced migration. The rise in sea levels due to melt water means that it won't just be Venice and small Pacific nations that are likely to become submerged by the end of the century. Predictions vary widely, but all in the same direction: even an increase of 150mm would be likely to affect over ten million people in the USA alone, with probably five times that number in China facing similar issues.

Solution: a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would seem to be the thing. This requires more electric vehicles and less methane-generating livestock. Arnold Schwarzenegger's non-fossil fuel Hummers and ‘Less meat, less heat, more life' campaign would appear to be good promotion for the shape of things to come - if he can be that progressive, there's hope for everyone. Then of course there's the potential for far more insect-based foodstuffs.

2. Food and water. A regional change in temperature of only a few degrees can seriously affect crop production and the amount of water used by agriculture. Over 700 million people are already without clean water, with shortages affecting agriculture even in developed regions - Australia and California spring to mind. Apparently, it takes a thousand litres of water to generate a single litre of milk!

Solution: A few far-sighted Australian farmers are among those developing methods to minimise water usage, including a few low-tech schemes that could be implemented anywhere. However, really obvious solutions would be to reduce the human population and eat food that requires less water. Again, bug farming seems a sensible idea.

1. Preventing vegegeddon. A former professor at Oxford University told me that some of his undergraduates have problems relating directly to others, having grown up in an environment with commonplace communication via electronic interfaces. If that's the problem facing the intellectual elite, what hope for the rest of our species? Physical problems such as poor eyesight are just the tip of the iceberg: the human race is in severe danger of degenerating into low-attention ‘sheeple' (as they say on Twitter). Children are losing touch with the real world, being enticed into virtual environments that on the surface are so much more appealing. Without knowledge or experience of reality, even stable democracies are in danger of being ruled by opportunistic megalomaniacs, possibly in orange wigs.

Solution: Richard Louv, author of  Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder suggests children require unstructured time out of doors in order to gain an (occasionally painful) understanding of  the real world; tree-climbing, fossicking, etc. Restricting time on electronic devices would seem to go hand in hand with this.

Well, that about wraps it up from me. And if the above seems somewhat scary, then why not do something about it: wouldn't working for a better future be the best Christmas present anyone could ever give?

Unwanted aliens: is a predator-free New Zealand realistic by 2050?

In a moment of half-baked madness worthy of Donald Trump, the New Zealand Government has announced a plan to make the nation predator-free by 2050. As can be imagined this statement has attracted a wide range of opinions, even from across various conservation groups. These vary from the extremely optimistic viewpoint of Forest and Bird advocacy manager Kevin Hackwell, who claims it is achievable even earlier, to the Green Party's conservation spokesman Kevin Hague, who publicised a University of Auckland study estimating the project's budget at an astonishing if not untenable NZ$9 billion.

With the government prepared to provide just one-third of the plan's funding, it's difficult to imagine which private sector companies would be willing to supply the lion's share over the next three decades. As expected, the response of New Zealand's political opposition has been to pour very cold water on the plan, including the claim that no nation has ever managed to wipe out its population of rats (Hamelin and its Pied Piper notwithstanding).

One of the most essential questions is what is defined as a pest in the context of this proposal?  The relevant Department of Conservation (DoC) page names three principle animal pests: possums, rats and stoats, with a further page expanding the list to other introduced animals and freshwater fish, including cats and dogs (both domestic and feral). Some of the species listed were deliberate introductions, mainly in the Nineteenth Century, whilst others came in accidentally under the radar - New Zealand's biosecurity protocols not always being as draconian as they are now.

A few statistics offer a frightening idea of the scale required: as of 2001 it was estimated that there were seventy million possums in New Zealand, eating 21,000 tonnes of vegetation every night. Needless to say, much of this material consists of endemic species such as pohutukawa and southern rata trees. This then has a knock-on effect for the native fauna that feeds or nests on these species, which of course is in addition to being direct prey for the possum.

Although cats and dogs might be thought of more as pets than pests, even in low numbers they can be devastating to native wildlife. A classic example is the extinction of the Stephens Island wren thanks to a number of feral cats, whilst it is thought that one stray dog managed to kill more than five hundred large brown kiwi in the Waitangi State Forest in less than a year.

DoC's Battle for our Birds scheme relies on aerial drops of poison and ground baits/traps to eradicate the key non-native pests. This year their target area was almost 900,000 hectares; to give an indication of the increase in scale necessary for a nationwide eradication, New Zealand is close to 27 million hectares in total. Perhaps the much-misused term 'paradigm shift' could be safely applied in this circumstance?

At this point it should be mentioned that there are varied opinions as to what the government's planned outcome is. After all, there have been humans living in New Zealand for over seven centuries, so there is little chance of any except the most remote locales returning to a pristine ‘natural' wilderness, even if we knew exactly what that meant. Having said that, the Pleistocene Park project in Russia is attempting something along similar lines. A small region of north Siberian tundra is being converted into glacial period steppe, using musk ox and other large animals as surrogates for extinct mega fauna such as mammoth and woolly rhinoceros. The resulting flora appears to be much more diverse and interesting than the unmanaged wilderness surrounding it, which is ironically the antithesis of what one would expect or hope for with untouched versus deliberately altered landscapes!

Then there's the scale issue: whilst possums, rats and mustelids are relatively easy to track and observe, small species such as wasps and argentine ants are far more difficult to locate, never mind eradicate. Although they don't inflict as much obvious damage to the native flora and fauna, they can nonetheless cause fundamental changes to the ecosystem. Wasps for example eat honeydew, which is an important food source for lizards and native birds such as kaka.

It isn't just insects that would be tricky to wipe out. The rainbow or ‘plague' skink was accidentally introduced from Australia about half a century ago and now seems ubiquitous in Auckland; I've seen it everywhere from volcanos to paddocks, gardens to garages, even inside a bookshop. Thanks to much faster reproduction and maturation rates than native equivalents, it appears to be rapidly out-competing them.

One issue that prevents a complete turning back of the clock is the extinction of dozens of species since the arrival of humans in the country. How can the ecosystem, especially food webs, maintain a long-term balance with key species missing? No-one is suggesting we bring in cassowaries to replace the nine species of moa. Of course, being large creatures they were probably none too numerous, yet there is an hypothesis that they may have been involved in an evolutionary arms race with lancewood, the juvenile trees being well-protected against moa browsing them.

Therefore any attempt to preserve a largely native ecosystem will need to ensure the food webs are fully-functional, with plenty of indigenous pollinators such as short-tailed bats and kereru (native pigeon). Key native species need to identified and preserved just as much as introduced ones removed. This in turn begs the obvious point that since evolution is an ongoing process, are we attempting to freeze the environment at a particular snapshot in time rather than allowing nature to take its course? Even accounting for punctuated equilibrium, natural selection hasn't suddenly stopped in New Zealand any more than it has elsewhere.

The pest-free project will presumably need to tackle species in a certain order, since if mustelids and feral cats are eliminated then rats will proliferate, whilst without rats as prey, the former species will be forced to look for alternative food sources instead; doubtless native birds would form the mainstay of this.

As I have discussed elsewhere, it shouldn't just be the enemies of the native poster species that are targeted. There are plenty of critters less famous than parrot kakapo and ancient reptile tuatara that deserve some attention too, with the endemic weta an obvious example (over twenty percent of its species are currently under threat). Invertebrates play an almost unknown role in nutrient recycling and waste disposal, as well as appearing on the menu of more conspicuous animals. Considering that the takahe, the largest species of swamp hen, was thought extinct for half a century, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about how little is known concerning the size and condition of native creepy crawly populations. However small and insignificant we might judge them, we ignore their loss at our peril.

Also often overlooked are the native freshwater creatures. Competition comes in the form of the high number of invasive species that compete or predate on them. A key example is the aggressive gambusia, a Mexican fish introduced to eat all the mosquito larvae - which of course it fails to do. Interestingly enough, the DoC website excludes some introduced species from its list of pests: salmon and trout for example are categorised as 'sports fish'. Therefore is economics the government's primary motive for the pest eradication plan, rather than good old-fashioned conservation for the sake of it? After all, the extremely rare takahe was once given second place to herds of elk that had been introduced to serve as a big game animal.

There may be something in this. Mainstream politicians are renowned for their lip service commitment to environmental issues. Could it be that in the wake of the highly negative stories earlier this year concerning exceeded fishing quotas and river pollution, the government is fighting to redeem New Zealand's '100% Pure' brand image?  In addition, agriculture might benefit from an increase in native species' populations. An outstanding example of the latter is shown by a Federated Farmers of NZ estimate that native bees provide pollination services to the tune of NZ$4.5 billion per year!

Finally, we get to flora. As Bec Stanley, a curator at Auckland's Botanic Gardens, is keen to point out, the majority of people have plant blindness compared to their interest in animals. There are thought to around three invasive plant species for every four natives, with old man's beard, gorse, ragwort and nightshade being amongst the best-known culprits. These can smother and kill native plants, thus depriving indigenous animals of food. Despite being vital to the ecosystem, the war on introduced vegetation really seems to be underdeveloped compared to that against non-native animals.

It doesn't take much to upset the balance of at least a local-scale environment. The surviving remnants of mighty kauri forest are currently facing a disease thought to be caused by an introduced water-mould pathogen, a clear case of David conquering Goliath. Without careful consideration, the project to rid New Zealand of introduced pest species could end up doing more harm than good. The motives are potentially dubious and the research chronically under-funded. It remains to be seen whether there is the willpower to see it through or if it is just one more piece of political rhetoric that evaporates by the next election. Personally, I'm in favour of the idea, but uncertain of how realistic it is. Regardless, the citizens of New Zealand need to do their best, lest many more species join the ranks of moa, huia, adzebill and many, many others. After all, who wants their children living in an environment dominated by feral pigeons, rats and possum?