Monica Contestabile: 00:10
Hello, this is How to Save Humanity in 17 Goals, a podcast brought to you by Nature Careers, in partnership with Nature Sustainability.
I am Monica Contestabile, Chief Editor of Nature Sustainability.
This is the series where we meet the researchers working towards the Sustainable Development Goals agreed by the United Nations and world leaders in 2015.
Since then, in a huge global effort, thousands of academics have been using those targets to tackle the biggest problems that the planet faces today.
Each episode ends with a sponsored slot from La Trobe Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and Food in Melbourne, Australia, where we hear about how its researchers are focusing on the SDGs.
In this episode, we look at Sustainable Development Goal Number 16: to promote peaceful and inclusive societies and justice for all.
And meet a behavioural scientist in the Netherlands who studies how artificial intelligence algorithms used in the surveillance of our towns and cities, affects our sense of safety and security.
Gabriele Jacobs: 01:33
My name is Gabriele Jacobs. I’m a professor in organizational behaviour and culture at Erasmus University in the Netherlands.
My background is in psychology and sociology. In our project, we are working on the role of artificial intelligence and public safety, and we are here looking into how different players in society from different sectors and different professional backgrounds are contributing towards public safety, and which role artificial intelligence can play in this.
The goal of the Sustainable Development Goal Number 16 is that we should promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development. Sustainable development here has a broad understanding to provide access to justice for all and to build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Gabriele Jacobs: 02:41
My background is in psychology and sociology, and actually, since the start of my studies, I was very much concerned with if you want peaceful and inclusive societies on a general level or in a larger sense.
I quite often think that my German background and my upbringing at the let’s say, the last years of the Cold War, has an impact there, because I always felt that science education research is an extremely powerful tool to create fair and just societies.
I was very much brought up in the understanding that we should do everything we can to prevent war and to prevent anything that has happened in Germany, in any way.
I felt that joining academia might be a very good way to do this. I’m a big, passionate fan of the European mission, and the main task I see here in Europe is indeed to make peaceful and inclusive societies as much as possible.
Gabriele Jacobs: 04:17
Well, safety and security are core aspects of the wellbeing of nations, of countries, of people.
On a very fundamental basis, we need to feel safe and our security needs to be protected also in the sense of, for example, our property rights need to be protected for us to develop wellbeing and economic welfare on a general level in our societies.
But what we see is that the topic of safety and security became in the last decades, actually a topic that mainly ended up on right wing populist agendas.
What we also see here is that safety and security is typically seen from the risk perspective. So it is always about danger and always about things that could happen to us and things we need to prevent.
The private industry also plays a very, very important role here, and we have seen after 9/11 that the investments into private security, like, for example, surveillance cameras, all kinds of devices has skyrocketed.
This is a little bit of a combination that we see the private industry has an interest, of course, to sell their devices and also to tell us how dangerous the world is and how much we need to protect ourselves with all kinds of tools and gadgets against the dangers.
Right wing populists use this very handily; their agenda, of course, needs this idea of a threat.
Gabriele Jacobs: 06:19
The technology developments around safety and security have, since decades, focused on digital developments, and one of the latest developments here is the use of artificial intelligence, also in the field of safety and security.
Here it is interesting that artificial intelligence is quite often also seen as a threat in itself.
Also these are, let’s say, narratives we also feed in the media where, yeah, we feel threatened by a technology we don’t understand, or where we feel that it has a lot of our potential.
I started a project two years ago where we look into the use of artificial intelligence in public safety.
But here we also had a starting point to look into the potential emancipatory power of artificial intelligence for public safety.
We are looking into how can artificial intelligence in the public sector, or in public safety in our field, be used in such a way that it is indeed of service for peaceful and inclusive societies and can enhance sustainability.
Gabriele Jacobs: 07:59
So in our project on artificial intelligence and public safety, we started with the question, who actually is in charge of public safety?
What was there, very clear to us, is that this is a multi agency endeavour, which means we are all responsible for public safety.
This is not something that is only the task of the government or that this is mainly the task of the police.
So what we therefore look at is when we use artificial intelligence in public safety, which is used very successfully in many contexts, for example, for crowd control, for mobility, we see that there are quite some very effective ways of using artificial intelligence to guide us more safely through cities, for example.
But we also see that at the start of the development of an algorithm in artificial intelligence, or a tool in which we use artificial intelligence, is the question of: what is the problem?
So who defines there is a feeling of unsafety, and who defines how this will be solved?
So this is something that we are looking into quite intensively. And what we see is that quite often, at least in cities in the Netherlands, we see a development that citizens feel that the understanding of “Do I feel unsafe?” has quite often nothing to do with crime.
As we all know, actually, the crime development is going – in all Western societies – in the right direction, if we want, so objectively, we should feel safer in our streets than ever before.
But subjectively, we feel unsafe. Quite often we see that people, when they say, “I feel unsafe”, quite often mean nuisance.
So they quite often mean littering, or that people are loud in the street, or that people behave in a way that they don’t want people to behave.
And there I just said they – so the question is, who are we? Who is defining that when a couple of young people are hanging at the corner, if they are threat or not?
So we look, with our project on artificial intelligence and public safety, also at how people, citizens, feel that the government should use artificial intelligence.
The first thing we looked at was into demonstrations.
Here we looked into manifestations of Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion is an activist group fighting against climate change and trying to raise awareness.
There we talk to activists, so how they perceived it, and then we also talked to the police.
This is, if you want, also a small way how we try to contribute to peaceful and inclusive societies. That we generally try to understand both sides, and really walk with both sides and get a deeper understanding there.
One first insight we got there is that activists were convinced that the police were using artificial intelligence, even though the police wasn’t.
And there, we have seen that already, the fear of artificial intelligence had an effect, in the sense that activists felt insecure, if you want.
But we also see that just the fear of artificial intelligence might also have an effect on also how the police is working, because they see that, yeah, the protesters they need to protect, but also to survey, that they start to feel a little bit more insecure and also take countermeasures than themselves.
So we see here an arms race, that when one side scales up, the other side scales up.
But what was for us here, in this context, interesting is that artificial intelligence can have an effect without even being there.
Gabriele Jacobs: 12:43
In the Netherlands, artificial intelligence is used in public spaces.
One example here is the boulevard at the sea and one of the places close to the Hague of the Netherlands.
What is happening here is that there are systematic experiments done with artificial intelligence in order to test out how artificial intelligence can help us to keep public places safe.
And one of the examples here is mobility. So with cameras on the boulevard, but also with other data that is collected, there are predictions done, for example, how many people will be at the beach or will come to the beach on a sunny day.
And how we can then best guide these people, either how to park their cars or also how to come there, so that we don’t have, for example, big traffic jams on an extremely hot day with, for example, small children in the car.
But there are also other experiments done which try to predict behaviour of groups on the beach.
For example, attempts to predict if there is aggressive behaviour within a group.
It does not only test the technical possibilities, but it also tests (and this is why we are there with our project, why this for our projects are interesting) the ethical, legal and social implications of such use.
Who is developing the algorithms? This is typically a private company, so there are a lot of different challenges that need to be solved here.
An interesting social puzzle is also, what does it do with us?
What is the idea of a municipality? What kind of municipality do we want to be?
Do we want to be a municipality that is constantly surveying the public? Is this the idea of safety that we want? That somewhere in the background somebody is taking care of us?
Or is the idea that we want to be very well informed about what happens to our data, who is filming me for what?
So what are the implications here? A very important ethical question here is, who is actually defining that, for example, aggressive behaviour in a group is actually a problem?
So who gets disturbed by this, and who is meant by this? How do we, because we need to train these algorithms, these algorithms are made, fed by us.
Is aggressive behaviour when I’m dancing and screaming, or is rough play already aggressive behaviour?
Is it something that we define “It is appropriate to go with five people to the beach, but 20 people would be too much”.
So we see when we look into these algorithms and how they are used and developed, actually how we define society, and who defines society?
What are norms that are relevant, and which norms are considered as deviant behaviour?
Who defines the norms that are baked into these algorithms?
Gabriele Jacobs: 16:34
With our project in artificial intelligence and public safety, we help to bring a tiny contribution.
Hopefully it is a little bit more, that we want to raise awareness that artificial intelligence can be extremely useful, but we need to learn to master and use it well.
And “we” means all parties.
What we are trying to do with our project is to connect people who usually maybe won’t easily talk to each other, like activists and police officers, or the private sector and NGOs, or other groups of society, to contribute in this way to a more inclusive solution towards artificial intelligence and public safety.
Because we really believe that all voices are needed for public safety, and that we need to maybe relearn to talk to each other again, because what we see in our project is that especially the conversations between unusual alliances, if you want, are the richest and most powerful.
When you think about my work towards SDG 16, I have to say, when I look at the last European elections and when I see what is happening around us, I really have to say depression.
But on the other hand, I see also so many of our students and colleagues keeping on working towards peaceful and inclusive societies, which I take as testimonials of hope.
I think this is what we are obliged to do, to keep on helping.
Monica Contestabile: 19:05
Thanks for listening to this series, How to Save Humanity in 17 Goals.
Join us again next time when we look at Sustainable Development Goal Number 17: to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize global partnerships.
But before we do, next up we’ll hear how researchers at La Trobe Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and Food in Melbourne, Australia, the sponsor of this series, are working towards the targets set by the UN.
Caris Bizzaca: 19:42
I’m Caris Bizzaca, and welcome to this podcast series from the La Trobe Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and Food at La Trobe University in Australia. I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands where La Trobe University campuses are located in Australia, and to pay respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, as well as to elders past, present and emerging.
Across this six-episode series, you’ll hear from academics at the top of their fields as they discuss groundbreaking research happening at the La Trobe Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and Food, also known as LISAF. Through LISAF, La Trobe has developed a holistic approach to food security, and this ‘paddock-to-gut’ philosophy is delivering innovative research and significant academic and industry partnerships across the entire value chain.
Its success so far can already be seen in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, which measure university performance against the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs. In 2024, La Trobe was ranked first in Australia and fifth globally for SDG 2: Zero Hunger.
Now, stay tuned to hear first-hand about the research of LISAF as it delivers innovative solutions for sustainable and nutritious food production in a resource and climate-constrained world.
Roman Buckow: 21:07
LISAF aims to integrate the entire value chain from food production to consumer health and nutrition. And, essentially, the Centre of Food Science is the one that is bridging the gap between agriculture, research, and nutrition and health research.
Caris Bizzaca: 21:26
That is Roman Buckow, Professor of Food Science and Director of the Centre for Food Science at La Trobe University.
Roman Buckow: 21:33
Our main objectives of the Centre is drive technological innovation in food science. We’re trying to enhance food quality and functionality, promote nutrition and health, but also we’re aiming to facilitate industry collaboration and commercialization. And, lastly, train the next generation of food scientists.
Caris Bizzaca: 21:56
To reach these objectives, the Centre has three key focus areas.
Roman Buckow: 22:01
First one is sustainable ingredients. That includes alternative proteins from plant or microbial sources. Likewise, new fat systems, utilizing plant fibre in food and nutrition, and utilizing the vast stream of by-products that come from food processing, as well.
The second area is focusing on reducing health-risk ingredients. So, essentially, trying to find healthier alternatives to sugars, salt, saturated fats, but also looking at food allergens and other digestive inhibitors that come along with many new materials that we now feed into the food supply chain.
And, lastly, our third focus area is on gut health. And, in particular, the impact of sustainable diets on the gut microbiome. And, also looking at digestibility and bioavailability of micronutrients of plant-based foods, and also creating functional foods that have a substantiated health benefit.
Caris Bizzaca: 23:10
Professor Buckow says this holistic approach to food science is vital.
Roman Buckow: 23:16
Food is a very complex and non-homogeneous material, typically consisting of multiple ingredients featuring different textures. It’s inherently very perishable, and we need to ensure a high standard of food safety. So, if you want to come up with a better solution for food systems, there’s no way around than looking at a holistic approach.
For example, integrating multiple disciplines in our research, such as combining fields of biology, chemistry, engineering and nutrition, to provide a complete picture of a food system. And, also understanding the interconnectivity of food production, processing, distribution and consumption.
Caris Bizzaca: 24:04
At the consumption end of the chain, part of Professor Buckow’s research involves reaching out to consumers.
Roman Buckow: 24:11
It helps ensure that any innovation and or product development meets consumer needs. So, the consumer is absolutely critical in most, and if not all, of our projects. In food science, typically, you use product testing panels to test new food formulations or new ingredients and how palatable they are. That’s one cornerstone of food science, in general. But more holistically, we’d reach out to consumers through surveys and questionnaires. We have consumer focus groups to understand trends and what is the next big thing.
In food science, for example, we hold workshops and interactive sessions with consumers. We use social media a lot these days to engage the community online and encourage feedback from consumers. We do use data analytics and market research to understand which categories are growing or shrinking. And lastly, we hold public events and go to food expos to showcase our research and novel products and, again, seek direct consumer feedback.
Caris Bizzaca: 25:25
That consumer research is then passed on to the food-manufacturing sector for use in house.
Roman Buckow: 25:32
We hold regular workshops and training programmes for companies to present the latest findings in nutrition and consumer research. We customize reports, depending on the food manufacturers’ areas of interest. But first and foremost, I would say that we include nutrition and consumer science in all of our research projects to make sure that whatever we are trying to address when we are developing a more sustainable process actually does meet consumer needs and that those voices are still heard, and we include that in our recommendations for the client so that they integrate that in their strategy. We also provide consulting services, particularly around product development.
Caris Bizzaca: 26:24
This research includes consumer panels, which can comprise trained or untrained participants. Here’s Professor Buckow talking through how the two panel types differ.
Roman Buckow: 26:35
So you invite hundreds of people to try a product and just seek general feedback. Do you like it? You don’t like it? What particularly do you like about it? This is very broad, and you need a high number of people to have a representative section of the population or of your market.
Or you have a trained panel where you invite 20 consumers, let’s say for argument’s sake, and you train them specifically to detect differences. So, it’s very specific for a specific product. Wine is a typical one. These tend to be very trained panels, and they can taste certain aspects because they know what to look for.
The trained one is really if you want to find nuances and very specific things. And the other one is more, in general, if you want to launch a new product and before you actually go into production and put it in the market shelf, you want to get proper feedback from a large size of the population.
Caris Bizzaca: 27:34
Professor Buckow says finding the necessary resources and funding for research projects is always a challenge. But researchers at the Centre for Food Science also face some psychological hurdles.
Roman Buckow: 27:46
With food, another challenge is resistance to change. There’s a lot of culture connected to food and food occasion. There’s a lot of traditions and many companies, but also many consumers, don’t like to switch their formulation or their diets. We have a traditional cottage cheese, let’s say for argument’s sake, and we’ve done it this way 100 years. We don’t want to change – even though there may be a better or cheaper way to do it – because we value our traditions.
Caris Bizzaca: 28:13
Certain products or lifestyle choices becoming popular through social media also presents an issue for an industry that can’t physically adapt as fast as an algorithm can.
Roman Buckow: 28:25
These days, consumer trends tend to be created online by influencers and it’s really, really difficult to predict what becomes a trend. And often the trend is not based on solid science – it’s perception. Somebody endorses a particular food product and suddenly you have a movement. And that happens overnight, and it’s very difficult to adjust to that overnight for an industry. So, these are the main challenges that I can see from my perspective and how we stay ahead of the trend.
Caris Bizzaca: 29:02
The next step for the Centre for Food Science is laying the groundwork for future research.
Roman Buckow: 29:07
We’re at an early stage so, at this point, we’re still establishing our research priorities. We’re also building up infrastructure and labs and equipment. We’re forming partnerships with industry and other research institutions nationally, but also internationally.
We’ve started to launch a few pilot projects to showcase our capability and identify areas that really tick the boxes in terms of industry and consumer needs. We’re very busy writing research proposals, working on our communication strategy, and we’re identifying training programmes, as well, to monitor and evaluate that we are on the right track.
Caris Bizzaca: 29:51
Their goal is already set, though.
Roman Buckow: 29:55
We want to build sustainable and resilient food systems. Looking at ecofriendly practices, circular economy, personalized nutrition and health, consumer-centric innovation, technological advances and data utilization, and education. Our vision for the future is really to become a leader in food innovation nationally, but also recognized internationally.
Caris Bizzaca: 30:20
That was Roman Buckow, Professor of Food Science and Director of the Centre for Food Science at La Trobe University. Join us for the next episode in the series where we will be exploring the social impact of adapting agriculture to climate change.