Engineering sustainable solutions program : critical literacies for engineers portfolio

Purpose While a number of universities in Australia have embraced concepts such as project/problem‐based learning and design of innovative learning environments for engineering education, there has been a lack of national guidance on including sustainability as a “critical literacy” into all engineering streams. This paper was presented at the 2004 International Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable Development (EESD) in Barcelona, Spain, outlining a current initiative that is seeking to address the “critical literacy” dilemma. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the positive steps taken by Australia's peak engineering body, the Institution of Engineers Australia (EA), in considering accreditation requirements for university engineering courses and its responsibility to ensure the inclusion of sustainability education material. It then describes a current initiative called the “Engineering Sustainable Solutions Program – Critical Literacies for Engineers Portfolio” (ESSP‐CL), which is being developed by The Natural Edge Project (TNEP) in partnership with EA and Unesco. Findings Content for the module was gathered from around the world, drawing on research from the publication The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation, and Governance in the Twenty‐first Century. Parts of the first draft of the ESSP‐CL have been trialled at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia with first year environmental engineering students, in May 2004. Further trials are now proceeding with a number of other universities and organisations nationally and internationally. Practical implications It is intended that ESSP‐CL will be a valuable resource to universities, professional development activities or other education facilities nationally and internationally. Originality/value This paper fulfils an identified information/resources need.

Drug law enforcement : a review of the evaluation literature

This article describes the results of a systematic review of drug law enforcement evaluations. The authors describe the search procedures and document the results in five main categories: international/national interventions (e.g., interdiction and drug seizure), reactive/ directed interventions (e.g., crackdowns, raids, buy-busts, saturation patrol, etc.), proactive/ partnership interventions (e.g., third-party policing, problem-oriented policing, community policing, drug nuisance abatement, etc.), individualized interventions (e.g., arrest referral and diversion), or interventions that used a combination of reactive/directed and proactive/ partnership strategies. Results indicate that proactive interventions involving partnerships between the police and third parties and/or community entities appear to be more effective at reducing both drug and nondrug problems in drug problem places than are reactive/ directed approaches. But the general quality of research in drug law enforcement is poor, the range of interventions that have been evaluated is limited, and more high-quality research is needed across a greater variety of drug interventions.

Is there a physicality requirement at Common Law? : a survey of the Pre-NRDC cases discussing ‘Manufacture’

One of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today, both in Australia and in other jurisdictions, is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether Australian patent law contains a physicality requirement. Despite being recently considered by the Federal Court, this is arguably an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in Australia. In its 2006 decision in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that the patentable subject matter standard is rooted in the physical, when it held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patent eligible. That decision, however, has been the subject of scrutiny in the academic literature. This article seeks to add to the existing literature written in response to the Grant decision by examining in detail the key common law cases decided prior to the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which is the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regards to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This article, in conjunction with others written by the author, questions the Federal Court’s assertion in Grant that the physicality requirement it established is consistent with existing law.