ePetition on Research Councils and Economic Impact

By Editors

The following petition was posted earlier this afternoon at the Number10.gov website (by Prof. John F Allen, Queen Mary University of London). If you agree with the petition, please sign (at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/honest-discovery), and please also forward this message to any of your colleagues who may be interested. The petition opens today, 2 June, and is open until 3 October.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to promote discovery and innovation in UK science.

We request the reversal of a policy now being applied by the UK Research Councils. This policy directs funds to projects whose outcomes are specified in advance. Science has never worked in this way, and never could. The real world is blind to our hopes, fears, and aspirations. Scientific research seeks to describe this world, replacing ignorance and error with knowledge and understanding. Where a specific outcome can be predicted with confidence, then there is no research.

Practical and economic benefits arise from scientific discoveries. Science has economic impact precisely because curiosity-driven research reveals patterns and features of the natural world that we did not know, and did not expect.

The UK taxpayer should not support investigations with foregone conclusions, however beguiling. UK research must not be guided by wishful thinking, nor relegated to producing footnotes for ground- breaking discoveries made elsewhere.

We call upon the Research Councils to return to their mission of advancing the frontiers of human understanding. Public support for science must renew its investment in discovery if it is to create prosperity and well-being.


Read more...

The French universities protest movement

By Andrew Chitty

John Mullen, who teaches at Université de Paris 12, has posted a report on the current protest movement in the French universities:

French universities exploding in anger

Read more...

The University of Utopia conference

Please note this conference on 4th June in Lincoln:

The University of Utopia - Radicalising Higher Education

Conference description follows:

Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) sets out, for the first time, the paradox of the modern (new) world: the possibility of abundance (freedom) in a society of scarcity (non-freedom); and the dangers that are inherent in this paradoxical situation for the development of the emergent capitalist society.

More suggests the universality of education as a way of resolving this paradox. For the humanist More, the highest pleasures are those of the mind, and true happiness depends on their realization. On More’s fantasy island, Utopia is a universal school for all its citizens, where all civic life is education. Citizens attend public lectures in the morning, participate in lively discussions during meal-times, and, in the evening, receive formal supervision from scholars. (Meiksins Wood, 1997).

In 1953, with the publication of The University of Utopia, the educational philosopher Robert Hutchins extended More’s allegory to a liberal humanist reappraisal of higher education. Anticipating the vocationalist critique of contemporary higher education, Hutchins wrote ‘The object of the educational system, taken as a whole, is not to produce hands for industry or to teach the young how to make a living. It is to produce responsible citizens’ (p.3). Hutchins’s views have been repeated and endorsed in the increasing volume of critical literature on the commercialisation of higher education.

However this critical literature has struggled to provide any convincing alternatives to ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). This absence of any radical alternative, occurs not because of a lack of imagination, but by virtue of the nature of liberal-humanism itself. For Zizek (2002) liberal humanism ‘precludes any serious questioning of the way in which this liberal democratic order is complicit in the phenomena it officially condemns, and, of course, any serious attempt to imagine a different socio-political order’ (167). What this amounts to, for Zizek, is ‘a prohibition on thinking… the moment we question the liberal consensus we are accused of abandoning scientific objectivity and recourse to outdate ideological positions’ (168).

The aim of this conference is to recover the freshness of More’s critique, while going beyond Hutchins's liberal fundamentalism, in order to imagine some real radical futures for higher education. The conference addresses the problem of inventing a form of radicality that confronts the same paradox that emerged in Tudor England, and continues to undermine the progressive development of the postmodern world.

The conference will be of interest to all staff in further and higher education who are concerned about the future direction and role of the changing university within the emerging global knowledge economy.

Keynote Speakers

Professor Ron Barnett, Institute of Education. “The Utopian University: Challenges and Prospects”.
Professor Antonia Darder, University of Illinois. “Breaking Silence: A Study into the Pervasiveness of Oppression”.

Thematic Workshops

Patrick Ainley, Joyce Canaan. “The Student Experience”.
Stefano Harney, Fred Moten, Jon Nixon. “Academic Labour”.
Cath Lambert, Mike Neary, Elisabeth Simbuerger. “Teaching in Public”.
Dennis Hayes, Terence Karran. “Academic Freedom”.

Read more...

A modest revolt

By Andrew Chitty

In a letter to the THE on 12th February twenty leading UK scientists, including Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto, responded to the stipulation that applications to Research Councils for grants must now include a two-page 'impact report' (obviously a code for 'economic impact report') by proposing that reviewers for grant applications simply decline to take these reports into consideration. Here are two news reports on this letter:

Scientists call for a revolt against grant rule they claim will end blue-skies research, Times Higher Education, 12 February 2009

Leading UK scientists call for revolt against grant rules, The Great Beyond, February 12, 2009



Read more...

Learning in the Square

by Alana Lentin (from alanalentin.net)

All over Italy, students and academics are on strike. They have taken education out of the classroom and into the streets and piazze (squares) in protest against the cuts to education (across all levels) and research being proposed by the Minister for Education in Berlusconi's government, Mariastella Gelmini. Read more here.





Beyond these cuts, the reforms being proposed by the Minister also include separate schools for non-Italian children. This effort in effect to exclude immigrants from the education system is being likened to Apartheid by many Italian anti-racists.

My immediate reaction to the Italian protests is to ask what is it about British society which leads to the almost complete absence of protest regarding the brutal marketisation of education which has been steadily advancing over the last decades. Except for pockets of resistance, such as Sussex University itself, there is little outcry against fees for students, the introduction of student loans, the tyranny of the 'Research Assessment Exercise' or the hegemony of security studies and business studies over all else.

Britain differs fundamentally from other European countries. Italy in particular is witnessing a rise in what can only be thought of as fascism which is particularly worrying since the re-election of Silvio Berlusconi and his army of neo-fascists and anti-immigration secessionists. The death of two Roma girls while sun tanners looked on last July explains the deep seated hatred that many Italians have for non-Western foreigners and the Roma in particular. The government is actively encouraging Italians to believe that their security is threatened by the existence of immigrants in their midst, even sending troops out onto the streets in the summer of 2008 to quell citizens' 'fears' for their safety (although no direct threat was identified).

An atmosphere such as this naturally polarises the population more than one, such as is more prevalent in Britain where certain concessions to 'diversity' and multiculturalism have quelled the racial tensions of the past and consumerism (ongoing despite the credit crunch) has dumbed the potential for protest on any other issue. So what is preferable: a society where everyone sort of ambles along and accepts the fact that many students won't be able to go to University next year because the government messed up the figures and doesn't have enough money to pay their grants, but out-and-out fascism is unlikely, such as the UK? Or a more polarised society where immigrants are burnt out of their homes and their children thrown out of school, but hundreds of thousands turn out on the streets and demand democracy?

Answers on a postcard please...

Read more...

Change in universities, “technology transfer”, and the commercial world: a summary

By Robert Miller

This is a summary of my essay 'Change in Universities, “Technology Transfer”, and the Commercial World: An Irreconcilable Clash of Cultures?', published here in June 2008.

The world currently faces unprecedented economic challenges, whose solution will require far-reaching innovations, in which universities, government research institutes, and commercial industries large and small, must all work together. In the last twenty years, in the UK and New Zealand (countries on which this essay primarily focuses), a style of university administration has developed, with excesses of both managerialism and demands for accountability which prevent real innovation from emerging. In their research role, this has placed short-term aims above more fundamental long-term initiatives. University staff spend too much time and effort on tasks which detract from these more important goals. This has been demoralizing and insulting. It undermines trust within universities, the integrity of scientists, the public appreciation of science, and, increasingly, it undermines science itself.

Practical implementation of basic research done in universities (often commercial, but not necessarily so) has almost always required a set of skills, experience and habits of thought quite different from those of the scientists from whom the basic ideas originate. Often practical applications originate with people who know the human face of real practical problems, rather than from the basic researchers. When fundamental research is turned to practical uses, it usually requires talents in addition to those of persons doing the fundamental research.

Much academic research can be criticized, because it is now dominated by “game-play”, entirely internal to itself, serving a number of vested interests (not least the publishing industry). Its proper function, that of providing new understanding, from which practical solutions may emerge, is, to an ever-increasing extent, ignored. Such “game-play” is exaggerated by the Research Assessment Exercise, and its equivalent in other countries, but was going on long before those policies were instituted. For far too long, leaders in academia have turned a blind eye to this; and now academia pays the price. The historic tradition of science is thus now to a large extent subverted. Until university researchers can address such criticisms, they become an easy target for excessive government control. Since the world of academic science is now international, this will require rethinking many of the national and international ways in which science is organized. This is already beginning to occur, with the increasing importance of open access, internet-based journals, with less exacting (or even no) peer review. Not least, a correct balance (and interaction) between theory and experiment needs to be achieved, especially in biomedicine and biotechnology. This would enable progress both in basic understanding, and in its practical applications to proceed more quickly, more securely and more cheaply than at present. The era of fundamental physics between 1890 and 1940 is a superb example of such fruitful interplay at its pinnacle, from which many other disciplines should learn.

In relation to “technology transfer”, the proper role of university research, especially in new fields like biotechnology, should mainly be to provide a large “well” of expertise, covering a very wide range of subjects, regardless of its commercial potential (which cannot be judged in advance). Technology transfer in biotechnology differs from that based on the physical sciences. In the former case, predictions for practical applications arising from basic knowledge are far less exact and certain than those in physics-based technology. This means that there must be much more effort in testing actual usefulness, long after the basic principles have been formulated. This in turn has implications for the way biotechnology should be organized, requiring styles different from those found useful in technology based on the physical sciences.

The practical development of basic science, which may require much larger investment than the basic research, and sometimes very big risks, requires fostering a culture of mutual respect, and regular communication at many levels, and on equal footing, between academia and the commercial world. Effective deployment of basic research in the form of practical applications is most likely to arise if such a climate of continual dialogue between academia and the commercial world is achieved. This will require change in attitudes within academia; but it will also require increasing openness and transparency within the commercial world, and adoption within that world of some of the ethos traditionally associated with universities. This is already starting to occur. In UK such a climate of mutuality and regular interaction between academia and the commercial world has not developed very well over many generations, because of radically differing attitudes within the two worlds. Examples where it worked well were in Germany (1830-1880), a period when many of our modern university traditions developed, and in more recent times in USA (based on local  state-wide  rather than nation-wide interaction between universities and commerce).

Large industrial enterprises can often be criticised, because of their focus on their own commercial success, negating what should be the real objectives of their industry (which wider society requires), and sometimes operating way beyond any democratic control. There should be the possibility of greater public influence on such industries, since in part they use taxpayers’ money, or rely on previous basic research carried out in universities at taxpayers’ expense.

To provide inspiration to young people about the values of science and the technological benefits to which it leads, and to warn against the moral failures of uncontrolled large-scale technology, education in universities, for both would-be scientists, and would-be business people, should include important background courses on the history of past successes of technology, as well as honest discussion of some of its past moral failures.

Robert Miller
University of Otago
New Zealand

The author’s research has been on the theory of brain functions, and its relevance to major mental illness, especially schizophrenia. This essay is also based on the author's reading more widely in the history of science and technology.
Read more...

Demise of a National Research Facility

By Hazel Cox

The government changes in research councils may be in danger of damaging the UK's contribution to world research and our ability to advance research knowledge for the benefit of the country as a whole.

After 40 years of a service that provided computational chemistry facilities to UK academics, we were told on Tuesday (8th July 2008) that funding has not been renewed. This is a catastrophic oversight and is without any strategic thought or justification. Over 100 UK research groups have used this facility in the last 3 years (40 proposals have been received since the beginning of the year). Surely this is an excellent investment in UK science and the high-impact publications (including Science, JACS, etc.) that result and the acknowledgements by speakers at International conferences, is really testament to the significance and potential of the research performed as a result of this National Service for Computational chemistry software (NSCCS).

This is not just a service for computational chemists, it has gained strength and momentum over the years to allow access for all chemists (in particular experimentalists) providing hands-on training where necessary, and workshops in which the writers of software (often International) are available to talk to users. Furthermore, given the expense of experiments, access to the most recent chemistry software (quantum, classical, simulation, solvent models, etc.) to use as input into experiment design is very cost effective. Science from fundamental materials chemistry, structure and reactivity, catalysis, chemical physics to chemical biology and more have benefited from this service. The only criteria for time on the machines and access to the latest software being that the research is of excellent quality (all proposals are peer reviewed).

But this is not just about the NSCCS, this is about national facilities in the UK. It seems the latest policy change within the EPSRC is that all national services in the future will be subject to response mode bids (although this has not been announced publicly yet) and it seems in this most recent case no strategic importance is used to prioritise such bids. Thus, the research councils are investing in a small number of research groups (which is great) but at the expense of a service that everyone can apply to and is of great benefit, significance and importance to the UK international research standing. Furthermore, given the expense of experiments, access to the most recent chemistry software (quantum, classical, simulation, solvent models, etc.) to use as input into experiment design is very cost effective whether that be through collaboration or directly (and the funding of the service is extremely modest, £2.3m over last 3 years). At a time when the success rate of proposals is hitting an all-time low (approx 5-10% success rate for response mode), National facilities are imperative if the UK is to continue to be competitive in the international arena (and to support researchers of excellent science that are not lucky enough to get funded due to lack of funds not due to lack of excellence).

Please do all you can to stop the demise of this UK national facility and help save UK science. Please sign the petition.

Read more...