Mediaboss Marketing

Although media often portray femicides as spontaneous crimes of passion when men kill their female partners, these femicides are the culmination of a history of violence in more than 70 per cent of cases and are more often crimes of control.

This article byJordan Fairbairn, King's University College; Ciara Boyd, University of Guelph; Myrna Dawson, University of Guelph, and Yasmin Jiwani, Concordia Universityoriginally appeared on the Conversation and is published here with permission.

On Dec. 6, 1989, an act of violent misogyny killed 14 young women at cole Polytechnique at Universit of Montral.

This mass femicide, though carried out by a lone male, grew out of a societal environment of gender inequity, misogyny, colonialism, racism and other intersecting systems of oppression.

Femicide, which refers to the sex/gender-related killings of women and girls, does not occur out of the blue. Although media often portray femicides as spontaneous crimes of passion when men kill their female partners, these femicides are the culmination of a history of violence in more than 70 per cent of cases and are more often crimes of control.

They are also often more likely to be premeditated than non-intimate partner killings. So many of these deaths are preventable, and we must use every tool at our disposal to increase public awareness and enhance prevention.

Holding officials to account

Public health efforts around the COVID-19 pandemic have illustrated the importance of clear messaging, prioritizing expert voices and holding political leaders and social institutions to account to save lives.

As these efforts continue, we once again mark Dec. 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, and reflect on the ongoing pandemic of male violence that continues to take the lives of women and girls worldwide.

Our work at the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability keeps track of this extreme form of sex/gender-related violence. As is so evident with the COVID-19 pandemic, the media play a critical role in informing us about how threats are defined, what aspects to pay attention to and how to deal with a given problem.

In short, the media frame the problem and suggest the solutions. As such, the media can be a key mechanism for primary prevention, but only if the problem is represented accurately.

In covering femicide, media have a leading role, not only in awareness and education generally, but in actively shaping the construction of attitudes and beliefs that can help prevention efforts.

In contrast, harmful representations include those that portray these killings as isolated or individualized events, focus on victim behaviours to suggest (implicitly or explicitly) that they were to blame for their own death or marginalizing certain groups based on race, religion, socio-economic class, sex-trade involvement, sexual orientation and other factors.

There is also the matter of who isnt represented at all. The missing white girl syndrome underscores that white, usually class-privileged victims receive copious amounts of media coverage while missing and murdered Indigenous, Black and other racialized women and girls are excluded from large-scale societal attention. Therefore, some women and girls remain invisible in life and death.

Media reporting on femicide is key

How reporters frame femicides is therefore critical for accurately informing the public. Media coverage of femicide has the potential to connect it to broader issues related to violence against women, thereby educating the public about these crimes, their broader societal causes, consequences and implications.

This media coverage might include terminology such as femicide, statistics on the number of women killed by intimate partners, domestic violence resources or new expert sources who are more qualified to speak on femicide, including front-line service providers, advocates and researchers.

In addition to providing more in-depth, empirically supported context about femicide, this type of coverage raises public awareness about the issue. It reports on femicides not as isolated incidents but more directly highlights community and societal solutions.

That can include funding services that help victims of violence, prevention education, legal reform and cultural change, such as targeting the attitudes that support or normalize violence against women.

As we remember those women and girls killed by violence in Canada, we can critically reflect on how their stories are told and how the media educate us about their deaths. We can move beyond relying on police narratives and cultural framings about femicide, drawing from the experiences and expertise of survivors and those who have lost loved ones to violence.

We can reduce sensational, graphic reporting of femicide and stop suggesting any victims actions, behaviours or lifestyles contributed to their deaths.

Femicide is a tragic loss of life. It is the most extreme act of violence against women, a human rights violation and part of a public health crisis. An accurate representation of this crime by the media must include perspectives that address all three of these areas.

Jordan Fairbairn, Associate Professor, Sociology, King's University College, Western University, King's University College; Ciara Boyd, PhD Student, Sociology, University of Guelph; Myrna Dawson, Professor and Research Leadership Chair, Sociology, University of Guelph, and Yasmin Jiwani, Professor of Communication Studies; Research Chair on Intersectionality, Violence and Resistance, Concordia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue reading here:
BEYOND LOCAL: Montral Massacre anniversary: The media must play a key role in fighting femicide - MidlandToday

Some of Queenslands brightest medical minds will share almost $2.7 million in grants for research projects aimed at preventing illness, improving patient care, and saving lives.

Minister for Health and Ambulance Services Yvette DAth today announced the successful applicants of Round 3 of the Queensland Advancing Clinical Research Fellowships (CRF).

Health research knows no bounds; the opportunities are endless, she said.

Few people are better placed to investigate health issues than our own workforce.

Queensland boasts a wealth of talent and skill, many of whom are eager to develop solutions to problems or identify better ways of delivering health care.

We established the Fellowships program so our clinicians can carry out research in their fields of expertise.

Fourteen clinicians in fields ranging from nursing and emergency care to respiratory medicine and audiology will each receive grants ranging from $100,000 to $350,000.

Their work aims to improve frontline healthcare delivery and lead to better patient outcomes, not just for Queensland, but the world in general.

Fellowship recipients will partner with organisations including Queensland hospitals, universities and health advocacy bodies.

Dietitian Dr Nina Meloncelli said she was thrilled to be awarded about $250,000 to research a new type of dietary approach aimed at preventing gestational diabetes.

It is possible that gestational diabetes may be avoidable for some women by changing what they eat in early pregnancy, she said.

The types of foods we eat can influence the microbes that live in our gut and there is new research that suggests this internal community, known as the gut microbiota, may be responsible for conditions like gestational diabetes.

Nephrologist Professor Andrew Malletts research will apply genomics to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs

Kidney disease is common and impacts how long, and how well, we are able to live our lives, he said.

One in 10 people with kidney disease have it because of changes in their genes.

My project is seeking to understand how we can explain, characterise and diagnose those changes, whilst also seeking to find new ways of caring for people who might have these types of kidney disease.

Minister DAth said she wished the Fellowship recipients well in their research projects.

I look forward to their outcomes improving healthcare in Queensland in the years ahead, she said.

Full list of recipients:

NAME

PROJECT TITLE

AMOUNT

ADMINISTERING ORGANISATION

PARTNER ORGANISATION

Oystein Tronstad

The ICU of the Future - evaluating implementation of a new ICU bedspace environment and outcomes for organisations, staff and patients

$100,000

The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation

Metro North HHS

The University

of Queensland

Lendlease

Building PTY

Limited

Eamonn Eeles

The Development of an Electronic Bundle of Care for Smarter Management of Delirium in the Frontline Healthcare Setting

$100,000

The University of Queensland

Metro North HHS

Usha Gurunathan

Hip Fracture Cohort Study Linking Obesity to Thromboembolism post-surgery (HipCLOTS)

$100,000

The University of Queensland

Metro North HHS

Katherine Isoardi

Effectiveness and Safety of Large Bolus of Intramuscular Naloxone for Opioid Poisoning in the Emergency Department: A Randomised Controlled Trial

$ 99,274

The University of Queensland

Metro South HHS

Tricia Kleidon

Applying technology to explore the physiology of peripheral intravenous catheter associated harm

$100,000

Childrens Health Queensland HHS

The University of Queensland

Alice Pender

Improving pathways of care for detection and management for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults with hearing loss

$100,000

The University of Queensland

Metro North HHS

Southern Queensland Centre of Excellence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care

Matthew Wong

Identifying preschool children with wheeze at risk of developing asthma using temporal oscillometry

$100,000

The University of Queensland

Childrens Health Queensland HHS

Nina Meloncelli

Changing the gut microbiota during pregnancy: a novel, co-designed dietary intervention to prevent gestational diabetes for high-risk women

$249,749

The University of Queensland

Metro North HHS

Emily Gordon

The GOAL Trial: Vascular Surgery Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for Older Elective Vascular Surgery Patients to Increase Attainment of Patient-Identified Goals

$249,683

Metro South HHS

The University of Queensland

Vikas Goyal

Improving the management of pulmonary exacerbations for pediatric bronchiectasis

$250,000

Queensland University of Technology

Childrens Health Queensland HHS

Emily Brooks

Comparison of two tapering regimens in the management of glucocorticoid withdrawal

$197,104

Metro South HHS

The University of Queensland

Andrew Mallett

Genomic Approaches to Kidney Health and Disease

$350,000

The University of Queensland

James Cook University

Townsville HHS

Australian Genomics Health Alliance (administered by Murdoch Childrens Research Institute)

Isuru Ranasinghe

Urinary sodium guided titration of diuretic therapy for expedited care of acute heart failure: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

$350,000

The University of Queensland

Metro North HHS

Yeoungjee Cho

Improving outcomes in peritoneal dialysis through patient-centred clinical trials

Continue reading here:
Health experts on mission to show that curiosity cures - Media Statements

by: Dara Bitler, Nexstar Media Wire

(Credit: Getty Images)

DENVER (KDVR) With the arrival of the holiday season and the announcement of the new COVID-19 omicron variant, where does each U.S. state stand with the coronavirus?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cases and deaths are up for the U.S. over the last 30 days.

According toJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the percent positive is exactly what it sounds like: the percentage of all coronavirus tests performed that are actually positive (positive tests)/(total tests) x 100%. The percent positive (sometimes called the percent positive rate or positivity rate) helps public health officials answer questions suchas:

The percent positive will be high if the number ofpositive testsis high, or if the number oftotal testsis low. A higher percent positive suggests higher transmission and that there are likely more people with coronavirus in the community who havent been tested yet, according to Johns Hopkins.

Heres where the positivity rate and case totals are for each state for the last seven days as of Monday, according to the CDC:

Here are the total number of deaths reported over the last seven days for each state:

In comparison, according to the CDC, four people died from Influenza in the U.S. during week 47 of 2021.

See the original post:
Heres where each state stands with COVID-19 rates, deaths - WTNH.com

Some studies suggest that the protection offered by currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines against contracting a SARS-CoV-2 infection and developing severe disease starts to wane after a few months.

Some experts suggest that this decline in immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may have contributed to the recent rise in COVID-19 cases in the United States and Europe.

However, COVID-19 vaccines continue to confer a reasonably high degree of protection against severe disease and death at least 6 months after vaccination.

The evidence of waning protection against the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 led health agencies in the U.S. and Europe to authorize the use of boosters for older individuals and those at higher risk of developing COVID-19 earlier this year.

The recent rise in COVID-19 cases has prompted public health agencies in the U.S. and some European countries to expand the eligibility for booster shots to all individuals over the age of 18 years.

Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allow individuals to choose a different vaccine for their booster shot than the one they received for their initial two doses.

Such a mix-and-match approach to vaccination, otherwise known as heterologous dosing, may be advantageous over a homologous schedule, which involves the use of the same vaccine for the prime and the boost.

Previous studies that used heterologous dosing for the initial two doses suggested that this approach may provide greater protection against a SARS-CoV-2 infection than a homologous schedule.

Data on the inflammatory side effects and immune protection offered by different heterologous and homologous COVID-19 prime-boost vaccine schedules are necessary to make policy decisions about the choice and dose of the booster vaccine.

A recent randomized clinical trial called COV-Boost assessed the safety of and immune response generated by heterologous and homologous booster schedules in individuals who received two initial doses of either the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine or the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The study found that both schedules were effective in boosting immune response at 28 days after the booster shot and produced well-tolerated side effects.

The study appears in the journal The Lancet.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines deliver the genetic information that encodes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human cells, enabling them to produce this protein.

The production of the coronavirus spike protein by cells in the human body generates an immune response involving antibodies and T cells.

Neutralizing antibodies produced by B cells, which are a type of white blood cell, bind to the virus to disrupt its ability to infect human cells. Some studies have suggested that neutralizing antibody levels tend to predict the degree of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The levels of neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 tend to wane a few months after the second dose of the vaccine.

Moreover, vaccinated individuals tend to produce lower levels of neutralizing antibodies against variants of concerns, such as the Delta variant. These variants of concern can also escape neutralization by antibodies in vaccinated individuals.

In other words, the decline in the neutralizing antibody response may result in limited protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Vaccination also results in the generation of memory immune cells that persist despite the decline in neutralizing antibodies. These memory cells form the second line of defense and prevent severe disease after the infection has occurred.

The presence of memory T cells, which are another type of white blood cell, can help launch a rapid T cell response after infection. T cells help eliminate infected cells to prevent the spread of the infection.

So, early activation of T cells due to vaccination plays a critical role in preventing severe COVID-19 and death.

Unlike the relatively drastic decline in neutralizing antibodies, the T cell response remains mostly intact.

Studies have suggested that COVID-19 boosters can help enhance immunity against the Delta variant and prevent breakthrough infections.

The recent study examined the effects of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as booster shots on the immune response at 28 days in individuals immunized with two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers assessed the changes in antibody levels at 28 days to estimate the protective effects conferred by these booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The clinical trial also assessed the T cell response and inflammatory adverse effects caused by these experimental booster shots.

The vaccines the researchers tested in the study were:

Lead study author Dr. Saul Faust, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom, says: The side effect data show all seven vaccines are safe to use as third doses, with acceptable levels of inflammatory side effects like injection site pain, muscle soreness, [and] fatigue.

[While] all boosted spike protein immunogenicity after two doses of AstraZeneca, only AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Novavax, Janssen, and Curevac did so after two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech, he adds.

Dr. James Shepherd, Ph.D. a professor at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, CT, who was not involved in the study spoke to Medical News Today about the findings. He told us:

The COV-Boost results from the U.K. are reassuring but not surprising. The broad ability of vaccines to boost each other in a heterologous prime-boost strategy, measured mainly by antibody increases as a surrogate for real-world immunity, would be expected.

Most of the vaccines use the same antigen, the spike protein, as an immune stimulus and can therefore boost each other, he explained. This gives public health programs reassurance that booster campaigns can focus on delivering whatever shot is available into the arm rather than the more complicated distribution and delivery of matching booster shots, added Dr. Shepherd.

The recent study involved 2,878 participants who were recruited at 18 study sites in the U.K.

The participants were at least 30 years of age and had received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. These individuals had received their second dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at least 10 or 12 weeks, respectively, before receiving their third booster shot.

The participants received any one of the seven vaccines listed above as the third dose during the study.

The researchers split the participants into younger and older age groups during the data analysis. The younger group consisted of participants aged 3069 years, and the second group included individuals aged 70 years and older.

The team also assessed the safety of and immune response generated by using half-doses of the Valneva, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Novavax vaccines. A control group received a dose of the meningococcal conjugate vaccine.

The researchers asked the participants to maintain a daily electronic diary to track any adverse effects. They further assessed the safety of the vaccine booster shots during the subsequent visits at the trial site.

The side effects observed after the booster dose were generally acceptable with all vaccines. Injection site pain, headache, and fatigue were the most common side effects.

The inflammatory adverse effects were more pronounced with certain vaccines. For instance, the Johnson & Johnson booster produced moderate-to-severe side effects in individuals under the age of 70 years who were primed with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Furthermore, the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Moderna booster shots produced high levels of side effects in younger individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine prime. The Moderna booster also produced side effects in both young and older adults primed with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers collected blood samples from the participants 28 days following their booster shot to assess the levels of antibodies against the spike protein.

They also conducted assays to assess the levels of neutralizing antibodies and the T cell response. These assays measured the immune response against the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants.

Among the participants who received two initial doses of either the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, all of the experimental booster vaccines produced higher antibody levels against the spike protein at 28 days than the control group. The only exception was the Valneva vaccine, which did not increase antibody levels in individuals primed with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The researchers observed similar results with the booster vaccines for the increase in neutralizing antibodies against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and the variants of concern.

The neutralizing antibodies levels against the Delta variant were slightly lower than they were for the wild-type coronavirus. Moreover, the neutralizing antibodies levels against the Delta variant and the wild-type coronavirus were correlated.

The study authors note that these results support the approach of using vaccines designed against the wild-type coronavirus, despite the emergence of new variants.

Participants who received the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine prime showed an increase in the T cell response after receiving a booster with the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In contrast, individuals who received all three doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca did not show an increase in T cell response compared with the control group.

Moreover, the Valneva vaccine which uses inactivated whole virus did not increase T cell response in individuals primed with two doses of either the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech booster shots produced the highest increase in the immune response. However, the study used the full dose (100 micrograms of mRNA) of the Moderna vaccine instead of the CDC-approved half-dose. This is because the study took place in June, which was before the authorization of the use of the vaccine for booster shots.

In sum, these results suggest considerable variation in the immune response and inflammatory side effects produced by different vaccine boosters. These results will allow public health agencies and policymakers to make recommendations for booster vaccination programs after taking the side effect profile, availability of vaccines, and susceptibility to COVID-19 into consideration.

The study included individuals who received either a half-dose or a full dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as their booster shot. The increase in immune response generated by both the half-dose and the full dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine booster shot was similar in individuals primed with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Furthermore, people who received the half-dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster had a slightly better side effect profile. This may suggest that a half-dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may be sufficient to produce the desired boost in immunity.

Besides potentially reducing side effects, the use of a half-dose of the vaccine as a booster shot may allow the vaccine to reach more people around the globe.

The emergence of the Omicron variant has led experts and the CDC to urge all individuals to get the booster shot. The spike protein of the Omicron variant has a large number of mutations, potentially allowing it to escape from neutralizing antibodies. This raises questions about the effectiveness of currently authorized vaccines and boosters.

Dr. Duane Wesemann, Ph.D., a professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, told MNT: In light of Omicron and the continued threat of other emerging variants, magnitude of response may matter a lot more. Current vaccines are related in that they present to the immune system the pre-variant version of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. If Omicron has substantial immune evasion features as feared, more robust immunity to this pre-variant spike would likely be necessary for adequate protection.

It is clear that neutralizing antibodies correlate strongly with protective efficacy. That said, it is very likely that T cells play a role as well, which would be less affected by Omicron, so T cell immunity will likely still be induced, but how much protection [this can] provide in the setting of severely weakened antibody response is not clear, he added.

In summary, Antibody magnitude may matter more in light of more immune evasive variants such as (potentially, well see soon) Omicron, said Dr. Wesemann.

The study was conducted at multiple sites and did not include participants receiving the half-dose and full dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at the same site. The researchers note that they could not draw a statistical comparison between the two Pfizer-BioNTech groups, making it impossible to draw any direct conclusions.

The authors also note that the study included only individuals aged 30 years and older, with a majority of participants being white. For this reason, their findings may not apply to the entire population.

Lastly, the team assessed the immune response at 28 days after the booster shot, and the results do not indicate long-term protection. The study design of the clinical trial includes the collection of blood samples at 84 and 365 days to assess the long-term immune protection offered by the booster shots.

For live updates on the latest developments regarding the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, click here.

View original post here:
Are all COVID-19 vaccine boosters safe and effective? - Medical News Today

In a landmark announcement today, the establishment of Australian Space Park will further cement South Australia as the nations Space State and provide a vital manufacturing link to the local space industry value chain.

Four companies are partnering with the South Australian Government to develop the space sector in South Australia through the purpose-built facility, the Australian Space Park Fleet Space Technologies, Q-CTRL, ATSpace and Alauda Aeronautics.

With the Australian Space Agency and Mission Control already based in Adelaide, the Australian Space Park will boost space manufacturing capability and capacity by initially co-locating four space manufacturing companies in a purpose-built facility with a focus on collaboration and production of small satellites and their payloads, rockets, electrical vertical take-off and landing vehicles (eVTOL), and supporting componentry and technical systems.

Premier Steven Marshall today announced the State Liberal Government would be contributing a $20 million investment in the Australian Space Park, which is anticipated to create approximately 220 highly skilled space industry roles within the first two years of operation, further building out the Space ecosystem in South Australia as the national centre for this emerging industry. Discussions with the Adelaide Airport are ongoing as a potential location for the Park.

My Government has unashamedly adapted a pro-growth, pro-economy agenda and transforming South Australia into the undisputed Space State is a key part of future proofing the jobs-economy for our children in the decades to come, Premier Marshall said.

The creation of the Australian Space Park signals our commitment to the South Australian and Australian space sector by bridging the gap between research and development and prototyping to production at scale.

The Hub aligns with Australias space strategy that aims to triple the space sectors contribution to GDP to over $12 billion per annum and create up to an additional 20,000 jobs by 2030.

It is fantastic to have four amazing companies partner with the South Australian Government on this initiative, with Fleet Space Technologies, Q-CTRL who we welcome to our state as they expand their Australian presence beyond New South Wales, ATSpace a brand new Australian company and Alauda Aeronautics partnering and co-investing in the Australian Space Park to further develop the space value chain to meet the needs of satellite and rocket manufacturers.

Having Q-CTRL and ATSpace establish in South Australia as part of this project provides further opportunities for collaboration and partnerships across the space sector. South Australias innovative and collaborative eco-system, coupled with our global reputation for hi-tech and space capabilities, continues to attract companies here.

The Australian Space Park is the next step in positioning Australias space community to deliver the entire space value chain enabling the design, manufacture, launch and mission control of NewSpace capabilities.

Flavia Tata Nardini, Co-Founder and CEO of Fleet Space Technologies, on behalf of the industry consortium, said the Australian Space Park will be an important centre to grow not only South Australias sovereign capability, but also Australias growing reputation for industry capability within the global space sector and advanced aerospace sectors.

We are delighted to be part of a facility that is the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere, Ms Tata Nardini said.

Indeed, we are proud to be part of South Australias growing status as a centre of excellence for space technology on the global stage.

The opportunity to collaborate with leading minds in our field in a dedicated facility like this will accelerate progress for our entire industry.

Adelaide Airport has been identified by the industry consortium as an ideal location for the Australian Space Park due to its proximity to traditional aerospace companies and the central business district and innovation precinct, Lot Fourteen, which is home to a growing community of space companies.

Adelaide Airport Managing Director, Mark Young, said the Airport Business District offered excellent connectivity with national and international users.

Were excited to be identified as the potential site of the Australian Space Park, Mr Young said.

In addition to our central location, we offer suitable land opportunities both for the hub as well as room for growth and to attract like-minded businesses keen to play a role in the growing space sector.

As the centrepiece of the nations space endeavours and building upon South Australias strong starting position in the New Space economy, the state is presently targeting an annual growth rate in the space sector of 5.8 per cent over the next decade.

For further information on the Australian Space Park visit http://www.invest.sa.gov.au/australianspacepark

Read more from the original source:
SA yet again shoots for the stars as Australian Space Park is established in the Space State - Premier of South Australia