Happy Birthday Turnstone

Five years of making the science behind important issues accessible (7 minute read)

The end of May marks five years since I began writing The Turnstone. This is my 350^th article. Substack doesn’t add up the words for me, but I’ve looked at my typical article length and think I’ve published around 700,000 words. So, I thought I would share some reflections and a little of what I’ve learned on my journey.

For each of the articles I’ve selected, I have identified something important that I learned. They are points which make me think, and which are useful to prompt conversation and curiosity about important issues.

Year one

Anti-vaccine sentiment has been with us since the earliest days of vaccines, even when they offered protection from prevalent, lethal infectious diseases such as smallpox.

By mid- 2020, it was clear that vaccines would be crucial for managing COVID-19 when they became available. However, it was also clear that vaccines would be no use if people weren’t willing to take them. I decided to look back at this history of vaccines, and what influenced the decisions people made about whether to get vaccinated. I thought that mistrust of vaccines had something to do with the decline of infectious diseases – that people became more concerned about vaccines the less they perceived the diseases as a threat. In fact, the picture turned out to be much more complicated than that.

Genetically modified vaccines were an important part of the COVID-19 response internationally, although they proved to be not without risks.

While I was following the news about COVID-19 vaccines, I learned that gene technology was being used to develop genetically modified vaccines. I was initially sceptical, particularly when I learned that one of the first to be used was a vaccine against the Ebola virus, which was first used during the 2013-2015 West African outbreak. On further investigation, though, I learned that gene technology had been making an important contribution to vaccines for decades. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which used gene technology, proved to be an important vaccine in the fight against COVID-19, but it also had some risks. The vaccine proved to be a good illustration of the dilemmas faced by health officials when making decisions about how vaccines should be used.

Year two

Disastrous decisions on invasive species, such as introducing stoats, ferrets and weasels to New Zealand, weren’t necessarily made in ignorance of the likely impacts.

A visit to Pūkaha, New Zealand’s National Wildlife Centre*, prompted me to write about some of New Zealand’s endangered species, and the threats they face. When I began writing about the impacts of predators such as stoats, ferrets and weasels, my research took me back to the debates about their introduction in the 19^th century. I learned that there were many people who warned against their introduction, and predicted both their failure to control rabbits and their harmful impacts. Those who made the introductions had this information, however their opinions that stoats, ferrets and weasels might be useful to them overrode both the evidence of people more qualified to understand the risks and the possible consequences to other people and the environment.

*I’ve just heard that Pūkaha is in serious financial trouble and may have to close after decades of important conservation work. Please consider supporting them if you can.

Pūkaha National Wildlife Centre | Mt Bruce Wairarapa Aotearoa NZ

Predators aren’t the only threats to New Zealand’s native birds, and we can’t simply assume that predator free islands and fenced areas will be enough to save some species.

On my visit to Pūkaha, I learned about a native bird I had never heard of, the tūturuatu or shore plover. Once a widespread shore bird, the last natural population survived on Rangatiri Island in the Chathams. A combination of introduced predators, negative interactions with other native species and an introduced virus means its survival is far from assured.

Year three

Climate change is more than just a rise in global temperatures; we are remaking how our planet works in ways we are only just discovering.

In my second year of writing The Turnstone, I decided that I needed to write more about climate change, even though I was intimidated by the complexity of the science. By my third year of writing, I’d found an approach that worked – to ask myself a specific question and then follow that thread. The following article was prompted by me hearing scientists raising concerns about the impact of climate change on ocean currents. I asked myself how they were connected, and along the way found an excuse to mention of one my favourite polar explorers, Fridtjof Nansen.

My largest personal contributions to climate change were the meat and dairy products in my diet, and flying.

I know that climate change is a systemic problem with no simple solutions. It seems that for every step forward, we take three steps back – meaning that for all our efforts it’s still getting worse. It’s hard to avoid feeling hopeless about it, and sometimes I do. Individual actions won’t fix it, but I also realise that without individual actions it won’t be fixed either. Politicians won’t act if we won’t. When I learned about the impacts of animal agriculture and flying, I realised that I couldn’t in good conscience continue eating meat and dairy products, or taking plane flights. I also realised that, for a number of reasons, it would be extremely difficult to give them up completely. I found a sustainable compromise and have been able to stick to it.

Year four

Lakes are more affected than rivers by excessive nutrients, and once the lake has been degraded it can be difficult to reverse the damage.

At the end of my third year of writing The Turnstone, I heard about the dire situation in Lake Horowhenua/ Punahau, and it prompted me to write about water quality. I learned that nutrients entering lakes become trapped in the sediment, making restoration extremely slow and difficult. But I learned about more than water. To understand how the lake had reached its present condition, I looked for historical documents, and found my way to a report written for the Waitangi Tribunal. The report detailed the years of decisions which had poured more and more pollution into the lake, over the objections of the local iwi, Muaūpoko. I understood better, then, what the Crown’s failure to honour the Treaty of Waitangi meant.

The complex problems in lakes may be slow and difficult to fix, but good relationships between councils and local iwi make the process easier.

Through some of my other work, I heard about a lake restoration programme around the Rotorua lakes which was doing something particularly special. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Te Arawa were giving effect to the 2006 Treaty settlement through an innovative programme to manage the invasive species in the lake. I visited to take a look at what had been achieved.

Year five

While there is much to debate about what we should and shouldn’t do with gene technology, there are examples where its use has made a real difference to many people.

With changes proposed to New Zealand’s gene technology laws, I decided that it was a topic I needed to write about. I’ve explored many different uses of gene technology, some of which I think are better than others. One of the most fascinating examples was the modification of a much-maligned kind of bacteria to produce insulin for diabetics. In telling that story, I learned about the history of gene technology, and was reassured that at least some of the scientists involved were aware of the risks and willing to manage them.

Twenty years ago, I chose job and financial security over doing what I love. Now, I’m doing the opposite.

In October last year, I attended the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network conference in Whangārei. I had a wonderful time in the company of botanists, and I wrote about plants. I was reminded of what I had sacrificed by chosing job and financial security over doing something I truly believed in and loved. Now, I’m doing the opposite. I love what I’m doing. I believe in making the science behind important issues accessible. I find joy in sharing the wonder of the natural world with people. Whether I can make it a viable way to live remains to be seen.

Thank you to everyone who has supported me over the last five years, whether that’s financially, by sharing articles, by liking and commenting, by saying nice things to me in person and most of all for reading. You are all deeply appreciated.

Image credit: Melanie Newfield