Search

While an astronomer's job is typically to look out from Earth, the seriousness of the climate crisis has meant a shift in many astronomers' focus. Astronomers are starting to consider how our resource requirements may contribute to this crisis and how we may better conduct our research in a more environmentally sustainable fashion. Astronomers for Planet Earth is an international organisation (more than 1,700 members from over 70 countries as of November 2022) that seeks to answer the call for sustainability to be at the heart of astronomers' practices. In this article, we review the organisation's history, summarising the proactive, collaborative efforts and research into astronomy sustainability conducted by its members. We update the state of affairs with respect to the carbon footprint of astronomy research, noting an improvement in renewable energy powering supercomputing facilities in Australia, reducing that component of our footprint by a factor of 2-3. We discuss how, despite accelerated changes made throughout the pandemic, we still must address the format of our meetings. Using recent annual meetings of the Australian and European astronomical societies as examples, we demonstrate that the more online-focussed a meeting is, the greater its attendance and the lower its emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Military personnel deployed to war zones or assigned to other morally challenging military duties are likely to be exposed to potentially morally injurious events (PMIE) that may inflict a moral injury (MI). This qualitative study formed 'Phase 1' of a larger study into PMIEs experienced by Australian veterans and the potential pastoral/spiritual care role of chaplains. Two seminars were conducted that involved 10 veterans being interviewed and audio recorded about their deployment experiences to evaluate whether there was any evidence among Australian veterans of a PMIE. Narrative data analysis indicated that all participants had been exposed to, or were involved in, a PMIE of one kind or another. Seven key themes were identified from the analyzed qualitative data: (i) immoral acts, (ii) death and injury, (iii) betrayal, (iv) ethical dilemmas, (v) disproportionate violence, (vi) retribution and (vii) religious/spiritual issues. Given this preliminary PMIE evidence identified, there is a need for further research, as well as the development of a suitable moral injury assessment scale appropriate for Australian veterans. Furthermore, given the ethical, moral, and spiritual issues involved, the implementation of a rehabilitation program suitable for Australian veterans which can be provided by chaplains is also suggested—namely 'Pastoral Narrative Disclosure.' It is argued that moral injury needs to be recognized, not just as an issue affecting individual personnel and their families, but is also a community health, organizational and government responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engagement of people with lived experience and members of the public is an ethically and scientifically essential component of health research. Authentic engagement means they are involved as full partners in research projects. Yet engagement as partnership is uncommon in practice, especially during priority-setting for research projects. What is needed for agenda-setting to be shared by researchers and people with lived experience and/or members of the public (or organisations representing them)? At present, little ethical guidance exists on this matter, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of people with lived experience and members of the public. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are essential foundations and barriers to shared decision-making in health research priority-setting and health research more broadly.Methods: An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted in 2019. 22 semi-structured interviews were performed with key informants from the UK and Australia.Results: Three main types of foundations were thought to be essential to have in place before shared decision-making can occur in health research priority-setting: relational, environmental, and personal. Collectively, the three types of foundations addressed many (but not all) of the barriers to power sharing identified by interviewees.Conclusions: Based on study findings, suggestions are made for what researchers, engagement practitioners, research institutions, and funders should do in their policy and practice to support meaningful engagement. Finally, key international research ethics guidelines on community engagement are considered in light of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]