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...

Academic freedom detainee released from detention after 31 days.

By Alana Lentin

Following the cancellation order on his deportation, and after being detained for over 30 days, Hicham Yezza has been released on bail after the Home Office refused to grant him temporary release.

Hicham, a prominent political journal editor, writer and University member was arrested under anti-terror legislation for the possession of 'radical material' on May 14th. The document in question is widely used for research purposes and was downloaded from an official government website. At the time of the arrest the document was being used as material for a PhD proposal (supervised by staff in the Department of Politics and International Relations) of a student friend who was also arrested.


In the wake of the arrest the Home Office attempted to deport Hicham: a move that elicited widespread condemnation. Alan Simpson MP said: "The basis of that removal is to try to justify the abuse of power under the Terrorism Act" (see website for text of speech). The deportation order was cancelled in the midst of protests and a concerted campaign for Hicham's release, but he remained in detention for weeks in various immigration removal centres. The Home Office attempted to justify Hicham's continued detention by claiming he had an 'absence of close ties' to the UK. This was despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including hundreds of character references from friends and university colleagues, testifying to his excellent character and exceptional contributing to British society over the last 13 years.

Hicham's arrest highlights the routine and inappropriate use of the terror laws in Britain. Despite the fact that the 'radical material' was immediately confirmed as research material by academic supervisors, both Hicham and Riswaan Sabir were held for 6 days. This is a pre-charge detention period that would be illegal in most EU countries. This development comes in the wake of recent national debate surrounding the extension to 42 days pre-charge detention and at a time when the US Supreme Court reaffirms the writ of habeas corpus in relation terror suspects held in. Yet the UK Government continues to undermine this cornerstone of liberty and accelerates the erosion of fundamental civil liberties. When asked for comment on his release, Hicham said: "Being detained for the past 31 days has been the most harrowing experience of my life. The support my campaign has received from thousands of friends and supporters - including MPs academics, artists and concerned citizens in Nottingham and beyond - has been nothing short of inspirational and has sustained me through this difficult time. I have spent almost half my life in Nottingham and throughout that time have done my utmost to be a productive and positive member of the student and local communities. I look forward to continuing my fight for justice and I hope sense will prevail."

Campaign coordinator Musab Younis expressed his delight, commenting: "The incredible success of the campaign is testament to Hicham's deep roots in the community and unique contribution as a well-known activist, academic, writer, and artist. The campaign will press ahead in its aim to secure Hicham's right to stay in the region. We confidently expect a swift and positive resolution to this case, in line with the values of justice and free speech that we expect our country to uphold." We are delighted that Hicham Yezza has been granted immigration bail and has been released," said David Smith, immigration specialist with law firm Cartwright King and who is representing Mr Yezza. "The judicial review will now continue and we hope that the case will proceed in an orderly fashion to its proper conclusion."

Press conferences will be scheduled shortly: see our campaigning website updates.

Contact the Campaign:
Phone: 07948590262 / 07505863957 / 07726466211
Email: staffandstudents@googlemail.com
Stop the Deportation of Hicham Yezza
Website: http://freehichamyezza.wordpress.com

Read more...

Rushing to Nottingham's Defence

By Alana Lentin

Two academics from the University Nottingham have condemned the campaign in support of Hicham Yezza, an employee of Nottingham University charged over terrorism offences and released only to be re-arrested over spurious immigration offences. The two, Dr Sean Matthews and Dr Macdonald Daly, while expressing concern for the situation currently facing Mr Yezza who is being indefinitely held in immigration detention, condemn what they call the "irresponsible, opportunistic and unethical conduct of many colleagues involved in the campaign to support Mr Yezza."

The authors of the statement start by making two substantive points. Firstly, that "we are confident that the University's declarations about upholding academic freedom have been reflected in its response to the arrests." Secondly, they claim that "we do not believe that the arrests constitute a challenge or threat to academic freedom."

The argument therefore turns around whether the arrest of Hicham Yezza and Rizwaan Sabir, originally for downloading and printing an Al Qaeda training manual, was in contravention of academic freedom. Matthews and Daly contend that academic freedom has not been violated and that the University, in immediately reporting the matter to the police, was merely fulfilling its legal duty.

They also place the blame at Yezza and Sabir's door by claiming that they acted irresponsibly by colluding to print out the document (Mr. Sabir, a student asked his friend, Yezza, a staff member to print the document out for him for free). Had they not done so, the matter would never have come to the notice of the authorities. In making this claim, the authors are noting that banal occurrences of this nature happen on a regular basis. What they fail to do is make the connection between Sabir and Yezza's actions and the heavy-handedness of the response. As was noted in the letter signed by staff and students at Sussex and Brighton Universities, it is clear that if the two "culprits" were not of Middle-Eastern/North African origin, their actions would have gone unnoticed, given that the document they printed out is widely available on various official websites, including that of the US government. Simply, a two-tiered rule is being applied: one for those safe in the knowledge that their white privilege will shield them from the law, even if - as happens on a regular basis - they contravene "the rules" by getting a friend to do their printing for them; another for those on the "most wanted" list that connects them by skin colour, religion and/or national origin to those purported to be "out to get us".

What is even more worrying about this case is the connection to immigration. Hicham Yezza is now being held in detention pending potential deportation from the UK for violation of his immigration status. This appears spurious given that he was working for the University, which must have been aware of his legal status, and about to apply for British citizenship based on his 13 years of residence in the UK. Despite this, the authors of the statement claim:

Had Mr Yezza been able to substantiate his claim to the University that he had the appropriate legal employment status, as all employees are required to do when they take up a post, or even had he been able later when the University asked him, as it is legally required to do, to provide documentation to substantiate such a claim, he would not have been arrested for immigration irregularities. Again, the responsibility for his arrest appears to relate to his own failure to provide appropriate documentation.

By putting the case in such procedural terms, Matthews and Daly are missing two points: Firstly, procedurally, no University in the UK employs anyone before their immigration status has been officially verified. Therefore, the immigration offences he is deemed to have committed appear mainly to be bogus. Secondly and more importantly, the authors fail to admit that current policy on "terrorism" works also to demonise "immigrants" as potential terrorists. Thus, by very virtue of one's status as a non-citizen from outside the EU, the US, Australia, etc. one is potentially guilty of plotting against the British state. Countless people, many long-term residents of the UK, have fallen victim of this politics that condemns people, especially those of "Arab" or "Muslim" origin, to de facto suspicion. As is documented in the film Taking Liberties, this has led to individuals being condemned to indefinite house arrest or imprisonment in criminal and/or immigration detention centres despite no hard evidence being brought against them relating to their purported links to terrorism.

This leads back to the issue of academic freedom. Part of what the current attack on universities from government and big business is doing is to silence individual academics who have chosen this career precisely because traditionally it enabled us to speak openly and freely about issues that concern us. It is ironic that, on the one hand, the talk is of liberalisation and flexibility, and on the other, we are being asked to police our students, suspected of involvement with "radical islamists". In the logic of the market, academics are styling their research funding applications to suit what they think will be funded rather than what they wish to research; what they believe will benefit society.

Ironicially, one of the biggest research areas identified by the research councils in tandem with government policy, is that of "security studies". This is exactly what Rizwaan Sabir was engaged in, downloading a document that is considered by security specialists crucial to the understanding of why "they hate us" and how terror networks such as Al Qaeda function. The question left begging, thefore, is just what kind of research is admissible and who should be allowed to carry it out? In absence of a clear response, we are all left asking the question, who will be next to be picked off, and how soon before it is not someone who can be attacked through the vehicle of immigration offences as was the case in Germany last year. And what, in the present climate, will no longer be deemed admissible research? If these are not questions of academic freedom, surely little else is...

Read more...

Against the Deportation of Hicham Yezza

By Alana Lentin

Staff and students at the Universities of Sussex and Brighton are signing a joint letter of protest against the proposed deportation on Hicham Yezza addressed to the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, Liam Byrne and the Vice Chancellor of Nottingham University, Colin Campbell.

Hicham Yezza, a staff member of the University of Nottingham who was arrested under the Terrorism Act for downloading an Al Qaeda training manual freely available from a US government wesbite. Although Mr Yezza was cleared of all terrorism charges, he is now facing imminent deportation on spurious immigration related offences. The University of Nottingham where Mr Yezza has been both a student and a member of staff for the last 13 years has done nothing in his support. He is currently in immigration detention awaiting deportation.

We are concerned that the actions of the Home Office, and Nottingham University's public silence over the matter, amount to an attack on intellectual freedom in this country that affects us all. It is also a matter of deep concern that the government, rather than admitting its mistake in arresting Hicham Yezza, has preferred to take the draconian measure of deporting him despite his longevity in the country.

Letter from staff and students at the Universities of Sussex and Brighton regarding the proposed deportation of Hicham Yezza to Liam Byrne MP, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration and Colin Campbell, Vice-Chancellor, Nottingham University (Copy send to The Guardian Education and The Independent).

Replies c/o Dr Alana Lentin, Department of Sociology, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RH. a.lentin@sussex.ac.uk


Brighton, June 3 2008


Dear Mr Byrne and Mr Campbell,

As academics and students at the Universities of Sussex and Brighton, concerned with the freedom of academic inquiry and study, we are writing to you with reference to the recent arrest of Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza at the University of Nottingham. The apparent offence was the downloading of an Al Qaeda Training Manual from the internet, freely available on a US government website. The response of the authorities and the University of Nottingham, in its singular lack of support, is a matter of serious concern to all British academics and students.

This matter has been compounded by the re-arrest, detention and potential deportation of Hicham Yezza on grounds of irregularities in his immigration status. It reflects very badly on this country that in response to the embarrassment caused by the initial arrest, further action against Mr Yezza should be taken merely to deflect public criticism of his handling by the security services. Hicham Yezza has been educated in Britain, has lived here for 13 years and makes a positive contribution to life in our country. As fellow citizens and residents, we believe that these actions are in dangerous contravention of our freedom as both scholars and human beings to contribute to research into matters of public concern. We are also convinced that if Mr Sabir and Mr Yezza had not been Muslim that their "offence" would not have come to the attention of the police. This has severe repercussions for students and staff of ethnic minority background or international members of our community who should feel secure as students and staff of our universities.

At a time when British universities are facing cuts and seeking income from international students, it is deeply ironic that the security and immigration services are making such efforts in alienating people from Asia, the Middle East and North Africa from coming to our country. We stand in solidarity with Hicham Yezza and others who may face the appalling situation to which he has been subjected and demand that he is released from detention and allowed to go home to Nottingham. We also call on Mr Campbell, as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nottingham, to issue an apology to Mr Sabir and Mr Yezza for their treatment by the University and to do everything he can in his power to halt the deportation of Hicham Yezza.

Yours sincerely,

Read more...