Bernard Michael Bindon - reproductive physiologist, animal scientist, research leader

This paper is a foreword to a series of papers commissioned on 'the impact of science on the beef industry', where the Beef CRC-related collaborative scientific work of Professor Bernard Michael Bindon will be reviewed. These papers will be presented in March 2006, as part of a 'festschrift' to recognise his wider contributions to the Australian livestock industries for over 40 years. Bindon's career involved basic and applied research in many areas of reproductive physiology, genetics, immunology, nutrition, meat science and more recently genomics, in both sheep and cattle. Together with his collaborators, he made large contributions to animal science by improving the knowledge of mechanisms regulating reproductive functions and in elucidating the physiology and genetics of high fecundity livestock. His collaborative studies with many colleagues of the reproductive biology and genetics of the Booroola Merino were amongst the most extensive ever conducted on domestic livestock. He was instrumental in the development of immunological techniques to control ovulation rate and in examining the application of these and other techniques to increase beef cattle reproductive output. This paper tracks his investigations and achievements both within Australia and internationally. In the later stages of his career he was the major influence in attracting a large investment in Cooperative Research Centres for the Australian cattle industry, in which he directed a multi-disciplinary approach to investigate, develop and disseminate science and technology to improve commercial cattle productivity.

Supreme Emergencies and the protection of non-combatants in war

Is it ever justifiable to target non-combatants deliberately? This article assesses Michael Walzer's claim that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants may be justifiable during 'supreme emergencies', a view that has received some support but that has elicited little debate. It argues that the supreme emergencies exception to the prohibition on targeting non-combatants is problematic for at least four reasons. First, its utilitarianism contradicts Walzer's wider ethics of war based on a conception of human rights. Second, the exception may undermine the principle of non-combatant immunity. Third, it is based on a historical fallacy. Finally, it is predicated on a strategic fallacy-the idea that killing noncombatants can win wars. The case for rejecting the exception, however, has been opposed by those who persuasively argue that it is wrong to tie leaders' hands when they confront supreme emergencies. The final part of the article addresses this question and suggests that the principle of proportionality may give political leaders room for manoeuvre in supreme emergencies without permitting them deliberately to target non-combatants.