US politics are not UK politics, don’t believe the hype!

Posted on November 4, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

and please PLEASE stop worrying about the stupid Tea Party.

I have spoken to several folks in the UK about the US election results. Varying between fear and bewilderment, its a general perception that US voters are crazy and that, on the whole, America is eroding via backlash against Obama into some neo-conservative nation. Given the recent stain of GW Bush this is somewhat understandable, but in reality the US has never been even close to becoming unilaterally neo-conservative, not even under W.

News about America in Britain is sensational, and appears to be designed to look for the crazies, who you will certainly find; but disregards the other half of the story. In this last election, there was extensive UK coverage of the ‘Tea Party movement’ – a quick Google search on ‘US Tea Party in UK news’ gives 5,000,000 hits, while there was relatively little coverage of the ‘Coffee party – return to rational politics – movement’ – a similar Google search gives only 300,000 hits.

The news organizations in Britain don’t give a fair assessment of the politics in America, largely because they seem to superimpose a UK political model on top of the US political system, which is in reality quite different. And this is really misleading, but probably news worthy as crazy Americans are more exciting than the moderate ones and to be fair the US is good at breeding crazy.

So here, in my opinion, are some of the reasons the mid-term elections in the US are not the end of rational politics in the US or as The Daily Mash put it on Twitter @thedailymash: ‘AMERICA EXERCISES RIGHT TO PUNCH ITSELF IN THE NUTS http://bit.ly/c8MzdD’ (happily retweeted by thousands)

1. The tea party scares the crap out of me too, but some won and some lost-

And important thing to remember here is that Republican does not equal Tory, and Republican does not often equal,
tea party or neo-conservative. There are many more moderate Republicans than ultra conservative ones – they are just not as exciting and don’t make the news in the UK.

2. A few ‘tea partiers’ won seats in the House of Representatives, seats which are 2 year terms. They may soon vanish. Most of the Republican seats won in the House were not ‘tea party’ candidates. Gaining a seat in the House does not necessarily gain you immediate power as such, the new GOP electees are junior. (N.B. the Republican ‘nickname’ GOP stands for the Grand Ole’ Party)

3. Being junior makes a difference in the US system. Lots of policy is done on the fly, through deals, being junior doesn’t help- especially if your party itself doesn’t like you. Many standard GOP party members are none too happy about the tea party.

4. There is not the same whipping system in the US legislative branch as there is in the UK parliament, much legislation occurs cross party lines, most of the committees in both House and the Senate are bi-partisan. Unlike the UK, the minority party has votes, they still make legislation, they aren’t a ‘shadow’ government. They participate actively in governing.

5. The US system is much, much more fluid than the UK system. In the UK a government is in charge because it won the most seats. In the US there are different branches of government (judicial, executive (presidency), legislative) they work in concert, not independently. Never forget the great balancing power of the courts in the US who actively turned over much of Bush legislation.

This doesn’t happen in Britain, in the UK the active government makes ALL of the decisions, they don’t work much across party lines. Because the US system does work this way many Americans believe different parties in executive and legislative branch is a GOOD thing, a balance leading to a more fair government. It’s not that uncommon in the US for someone to vote for a Democratic president and a Republican Senator. Americans tend to vote for the candidate not for the party. In America you vote for minimally a State Senator, a State Representative, a State Governor, 2 National Senators to, a National Representative and the President. In Britain you vote for one MP from one party who goes to Parliament – one.

Don’t get me wrong, I do love the UK – it’s my adopted country. There are so many things I like from the very simple -Bovril, clotted cream and the abundance of book stores (which actually contain good books); to the more complex and difficult to define – a cup of tea in a crisis, the gentleness when you are in real need – like of NHS nurses and the police, the tolerance of differences in cultures and people. Even if some one doesn’t like you in the UK they generally leave you alone.

I also love my native country, and I am more than a little miffed that even to say that near as dammit labels me as a neo-conservative, nutso Palinesque Republican, am I not allowed to love a place even though it pisses me off?

What I particularly love is the idea of America, which is ultimately a nation built almost solely on an idea, in that respect it is unlike any other place (no offense to the French). And it was, arguably, built upon a BRITISH idea, you could even consider it the ultimate product of British Enlightenment.

But the folks in the US and the UK are not really the same, not only in the way we speak but in the way we think and importantly VOTE! And you cannot transpose a model of one onto the other. So when reading about US politics in the UK in the words of Public Enemy: Don’t believe the hype!

Posted in politics, US government, US mid-term elections 2010 | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Increased student fees are not the erosion of a welfare state

Posted on October 27, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

But rather an opportunity..
fee increases can be beneficial to both students AND universities if done the right way

Student fees are set to increase from around £3,290 to, maybe, as the Browne report recommended, up to £14,000….

So many people find this appalling, especially those who were educated in Britain for no personal expense (or even paid something by the state) back in the day. But that was then and this is now.

There are several arguments as to why the state SHOULD pay for higher education. One of them is that state funded education leads to a more equal social model, where access across all social classes, regardless of familial income, is dependent only on ability, without any bias towards the rich. There is a fear that introducing higher student fees will basically screw the poor, e.g. less well-off students will be able to afford a higher education regardless of their ability.

However, even in the current supposedly more equal higher education model, poorer students are still at a relative disadvantage. Even though there has been a recent increase in the number of poor students who attend university in the UK, there is still disproportionate number of wealthier students at UK Universities. Such as Oxford and Cambridge, who, according to the Guardian only accepts about 1% of the poorest students. This is due in a large part to the fact that those from poorer backgrounds don’t have the same secondary school opportunities as richer public school students. Able students don’t always have the opportunity to be educated in an appropriate manner to allow them to even get into university.

In the 1970’s a much smaller percentage of students even attended university than do today, a much smaller percentage. The increase in student numbers reflects an increase in opportunity across socio-economic classes but also reflects the lack of opportunity in other available employment. But the bottom line is that with increasing student numbers in higher education, someone has to pay for it and there is a limit to what any government can pay, however socially minded.

But I think that rather than being an entirely negative thing, student fees could mean hope for the future, if done correctly, increase the educational opportunities for poorer students

1 – higher student fees University could increase the money available to make secondary schools better leading to a better chance for students from poor backgrounds (who tend to live in poor compulsory school districts) to be competitive to attend university.

2 – a fee increase means that Universities have MORE money, and MORE money means (if managed correctly) more places for students. I recently attended a talk in Parliament by Ben Wildavsky of the Kauffman Foundation and author of the book The Great Brain Race who noted that the increase in student fees at University of California, LA (UCLA) has actually led to an increase in the number of students from poor background not a decrease.

As a side note increased ‘private’ money for Universities leads to a decrease of state control, so that on a whim the state can’t decide, as this current government has, to only fund STEM subjects and not the arts. Giving Universities more control of this decision, might redress the problem.

3 – If universities implement a smart financial model NOW, such as using microfinance model similar to Kiva, like the Vittana foundation or using scholarship programs that help those who can’t afford Universities easily, there could be more money available for those who need it the most.

I think rather than focusing on the negative effect for the money that the government is definitely NOT going to give to the Universities, we may – if we are careful about our financial models, create hope for the future with a better balance for the most able students attending the best Universities, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

Posted in higher education, student fee increase | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Supernova – Chaco Canyon style

Posted on October 5, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

If you ever happen to find yourself in the USofA and in particular in Northern New Mexico go to Chaco Canyon. Its just cool. You might want to make sure you have a nice 4 wheel drive to get there so you don’t fishtail like crazy (think single track, sand and washboards) but go.

The Chacoans (a mixture of Hopi, Navajo and other tribes over the years) built this huge, well, city which was active between 850 and 1250 and you can still see the ruins from many of the large architectural structures.

And there is something for every kind of science geek out there

Geologists – its a big Cliff House Sandstone site, where you can observe geological time

Menefee formation

Fossil hunters – there are really cool sea creatures on top of the mesas some from the late Cretaceous period.

Chacoan sea fossils

Archeologists (it has 4000 registered sites)

Wijiji

And my favourite, these peoples were aware about astrophysics or astronomy or some version thereof – which is easy to see because there is NO light pollution – besides from other campers – and a big sky and you can clearly see the Milky Way even on a cloudy night!

Milky Way Chaco Poster

they even have a cool Supernova Petrograph which is thought to depict the 1054 Supernova

Supernova Petrograph

Such a great place and thankfully it is preserved for all of us to go to (provided we can get there) thanks to the US National Park Service (Department of the Interior) which like the analogous UK National Trust, is an institution that the US government does right!

Posted in Chaco Canyon, US National Park Service | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why is science important?

Posted on September 19, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

Alom Shaha runs a webpage called
“Why is science important?”

where amongst other things, people, some scientists some not, give their veiws on why science is important.

I wrote something for this if you care to look

“Discoveries come in the most unexpected places”

Its a cool website, with good views, have a browse around

Posted in random, science | Tagged | Comments Off on Why is science important?

On being a ‘foot soldier’

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

Or cannon fodder speaking out.

In case you haven’t heard, science funding in the UK is under threat.
From Paul Nurse, who said we need to fund only ‘excellent’ science to Vince Cable who thinks 45% of research in the UK is not-excellent and we should be only funding either ‘excellent’ theoretical work or things that will make money (eg technological advances) its not looking good for science research in the UK.

Of course scientists and science aficionados are dismayed, angry and trying to fight for what they know science to be, and why it needs funding, all kinds of funding.

One of the arguments for funding says science needs ‘foot soldiers’ – where the argument goes a la Newton – that excellent science needs other science which is ‘boring’ to stand on. eg foot soldier scientists.

BUT I think this term should be used with caution, or maybe even not at all.

Foot soldier implies to me ‘cannon fodder’ and this is a bad image for several reasons:

1 – This implies that science is a pyramidal process with those on the bottom being weed-like and just doing the background work for those on the top. Science is not linear, nor that predictable. It grows and recedes in fits and starts and it not just simply marching forward toward a common goal or puzzle to solve. Technology works like this, but not science! Science looks for answers to questions, one paper, research project at at time. You often don’t know what the answer will be and the answers often open up a whole load of other questions and importantly – you NEVER KNOW where a breakthrough will come from over the long term. Lots of important discoveries were actually by accident – when someone was working on something completely different.

2- this term implies that the ‘excellent’ science is at the top and the ‘dull’ science is at the bottom. which calls into question what do you mean by ‘dull’ and ‘excellent’ ? Do you base it on citations? Do you base it on the quality of the Journal it is in? Most scientists have observed that some of the best papers aren’t in Nature, and are actually in more low-impact journals. And if you base this on citations, sometimes bad or wrong science is more highly-cited – because everyone is saying it is wrong. And different scientific fields have different citation levels, just due to the sheer number of people working in a given subject area. Simply put – quantity does not always equal quality.

An important test of scientific research is its longevity – something might be highly cited and highly ‘important’ in one generation of scientists – but then just a blip in the overall body of scientific research over time. What about the Luminiferous aether? And no one has a crystal ball that tells us the most important research in the future. Moreover, sometimes old ‘boring’ research gets revived when new discoveries are made in different areas – Lie Algebra is a good example of this.

As a side note, Cable said we should support theoretically excellent ideas, which I would agree with, but ONLY along with everything else. Theory is an important part of science, but its hard to say what is excellent until the theories are proved or disproved – and this again takes time.

This pyramidal model is exactly the idea that advocates of science are trying to argue against – that science is marching towards some big common goal, with the great people on top – it is but only in the sense that science answers questions and that is a pretty broad goal.

Maybe a better statement is ‘it takes all kinds’, though not as evocative, it actually is perhaps closer to the reality.

The research I do I am not doing so that someone more excellent than me can show up in the future and stand on it and thereby make it excellent. I would bet many other scientists feel this way as well. My research is striving towards its own excellence, whatever that means and maybe only in my mind, because I have some specific scientific questions I want to answer, and you never know, this may be a big breakthrough or it may be a blip in the aether.

Posted in science, UK Science policy, Vince Cable | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

On Cable, Dawkins and the Papal Visit

Posted on September 9, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

The uproar(s) seems to be largely a matter of tone…

Vince Cable, his remarks are condescending in general, speaking as if scientists are just a bunch of naughty school children who want more cake off the tax-payers dime. The tone is annoying, yes, but the results of that attitude will be even worse, more cuts (in case you forgot funding was also cut last year). Scientists are angry, nobody likes being talked to by their government as if they were just a bunch of lazy slackers sitting around drinking tea all day. If you really are trying to get scientists to do more with less, it might be better to be a little more understanding and re-invoke that Blitz spirit or even the Obama spirit of Yes We Can. You catch more flies with honey.

William CullerneBown has written a nice post on Exquisite Life about Cable and science reaction here.

And the arguments against Cable are largely a matter of TONE. His tone, and his attitude towards academic scientists.

There is another tone problem this week, Richard Dawkins, or rather another tone problem which is being discussed, I don’t think Prof. Dawkins tone has changed in the last 10 years. There have been several posts in the blog-o-sphere starting with Jonathon Jones, followed by a post today Alom Shaha about tone (both of Dicky D and of Jonathon Jones). And several other posts for instance by a member of the Cambridge Skeptics Andrew Holding. There are various arguments about Dawkins, but the theme of these, in part, is his tone.

But the other thing that comes to mind to me, speaking of Dawkins, is the hoopla about that papal visit.

Ok, so now there is a whole protest about the Pope, presumably because he knew all about abuse of children and didn’t do the right things. There are other human rights issues in there too, according to the protestors see the petition to Number 10.

What I am definitely NOT saying is that we shouln’t be appalled by rape, or any human rights abuses. And another thing I am NOT saying here, is I am not making any judgements on whether or not the Holy See is guilty, that is not the point of this post, and in all honesty I don’t know enough about human rights records in one country vs. another to really give a fair comment.

But there a couple of things about this protest that are just weird.

1 – Running a State means you have State visits, and the Papal visit isn’t any more expensive than any other State visit, and not that I know this but I bet a visit by Obama is even more expensive.

2- State visits don’t always entail representatives of States which have practices that you entirely agree with. For instance Prince Andrew is in China right now. China is a communist country, and uh democracies or even in this case a constitutional monarchy, and they don’t exactly see eye to eye about all sorts of issues, including human rights. Guantanamo Bay is a human rights violation, but George Bush still got to visit the UK, while he was president – without a petition to number 10.

Anyone, in the UK, does have the right to protest, and I can see why you would protest against human rights abuses BUT if its really about human rights – there are lots of state visits you could protest, where do you start? Do you stop State visits altogether?

3- I don’t think human rights abuses is solely the issue with this visit. And why do I think this? Because of the TONE. What its about is the fact that the Pope is religious leader and a State leader – and we know Dawkin’s position on Religion being the harbinger of immorality. So really this protest appears to be about about RELIGIOUS people doing bad things and not people just doing bad things.

And this is the part that really bothers me, why is it any WORSE because its the Pope? Human rights violations are human rights violations no matter who the perpertrator, full stop. Why pick the Pope? If you believe there is a leader who doesn’t protect against human rights violations, shouldn’t you be appalled equally, independent of that leader’s metaphysical belief system?

But maybe the real point – as Dawkins is a champion of atheism as an opposing force to religion, and given his tone about that subject – is that really he is appalled because there is a State visit by a religious leader, who hasn’t always done something he agrees with. The Pope does happen to be one of the few, relatively, State leaders who are also the head of a Religion.

But then again, so is the Queen.

Posted in papal visit, richard dawkins, Vince Cable | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

On women in science

Posted on September 1, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

I am always in 2 minds about Women in Science. There is something about that title that reminds me of the Muppet Show and I can hear the announcement line sounding like ‘Pigs in Space’ – and it just sounds silly..

I am, after all, a woman in science though I haven’t really ever thought of myself as that. I don’t mean I think I am not a scientist (I am) and I am pretty clear that I am a woman, but those things don’t seem like they should be mutually exclusive to me. The term Woman in Science actually points out that that subject (women) in Science is something somehow different.

I have always thought, in my job why does (should) it matter that I am a woman? Other than I obviously use different washroom facilities. My position on this as a graduate student was a follows: I am training to be a scientist, and I am just as good (or bad) as the next guy or gal, I should be judged on my merits not on my reproductive equipment. So I was adamantly against participating in any society which highlights the fact I am different – I didn’t want to be a part of women in science groups, full stop, which to me seemed divisive and separates women even further from a male dominated profession.

It is true that women are under-represented in many sciences, especially the physical sciences, and they did not participate in professional science (except on the sly) until fairly recently. There are some pretty amazing stories about women who worked in science against all of the odds. There are amazing individual stories about Rosalind Franklin, Caroline Hershel and so many others that worked in science before they were really ‘allowed’ and yes it really was ‘allowed’.

And we love these stories! I do, they are great, and impressive. In the UK they love an underdog, and in the US they love the pioneer American dream spirit – against all odds! These amazing forerunners fought the system and won. Individually this is powerful stuff. But should you really have to fight against the odds just to have a job in science? And what about all of the women who probably fought the good fight and still failed, or had to give it up, or quit to have children (as a lot of people did, as it was “normal”) who knows about them? My mother (who is a social worker) always told me that if she had it to do all over again she would be a wildlife biologist, or a park ranger. But my mother was born in the 30’s in Southern US and as she said – that’s just the way it was, women were either nurse’s, teachers or social workers – so she didn’t even KNOW she had a choice, really.

And some of the women, I am sad to say, who have succeeded against all odds are the worst about repressing other women, just like some of the most conservative people about social equality are the very ones that could have used a leg up, simply because they themselves fought ‘against the odds’ and therefore think ‘why can’t everyone else?’

I really don’t want to be and hope I am not like that, not that I have a startling Nobel prize winning career, but I don’t want to be intolerant of people with different backgrounds (be they women or whatever under-represented portion of the population) who didn’t do what I did. No one’s life is the same. I also think by excluding people you cut your base, you necessarily limit what can be done, just like only funding the elite. And while —– (insert whatever under-represented group you like) aren’t ‘excluded’ in any formal sense these days, they may well be excluded in an unconscious manner, unconscious bias – and this can sting, and in some instances be so discouraging, people just think – forget it, I can’t (or don’t want to) deal with this.

I think about some of the things that have been said to me in my scientific career, for instance:

When I got my first independent fellowship from NSF, I was ultra-excited, and a senior (male) professor told me –
“You only got it because you are a woman” ?!?!

When I was on an interview panel with a male colleague who said (in response to a question I asked the candidate)
” She just thinks that because she is a woman”

Thankfully, these instances, at least in my career, have been rare. Most people don’t think or at least don’t say things like this.

So here is the two minds bit – bias still exists, and I truely believe that all people, regardless of race, gender, etc. should be encouraged not discouraged, so maybe a women in science group is the way to do this? But I still don’t want to be a member, because I don’t want to classify myself as different, but I think, as I didn’t used to think, there is a place for this, whether or not I want to participate myself.

So if you want to join a women in science (or whatever group) I have one thing to say –

you go girl!

Posted in science ethics, women, women in science | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Ensuring that there really will be no jam tomorrow-

Posted on August 27, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

STOP IT GEORGE OSBORNE
Shutting down research facilities today? Does this mean Jam tomorrow? No! No! No!

It’s short-sighted and stupid.

Even Margaret Thatcher knew that… The ISIS facility in Oxfordshire (a neutron source in danger of being ‘mothballed’) was built in 1984 and opened by… Margaret Thatcher – there is a plaque there which shows the Iron lady’s appearance,you can go and see it
Margaret Thatcher

Now George Osborne and Co. want to shut it down. Shame on you, what would the blessed Margaret think? My point is, even the Tories of yore thought it was a good idea, despite their economic policies, which says alot.

The Guardian reports:
John Womersley, director of science programmes at the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), told the Guardian it would not be possible to achieve such deep cuts without mothballing a major facility. (N.B. the STFC ‘runs’ several major facilities – Diamond, a synchrotron for X-rays, ISIS – a neutron facility, among others in the UK – one of which might be targeted to shut down. Not to mention the UK’s involvement in CERN.)

Great that Womersley is supporting the STFC, that is really what you need in a director ….

In this same Guardian article shutting down a major facility has been likened (aptly in my view) to building the Olympic stadium and then just deciding not to have the Olympics.

Moreover, former Lib-Dem MP and science advocate Dr. Evan Harris has invoked a call to arms in a Guardian article, where and points out that the Con/Lib government doesn’t even have a Science Advisor! (Correction: I originally mis-quoted this, the government does have a Scince advisor, its theTreasury Department that doesn’t have a Science Advisor see here , apologies)
Similarly, Prof. Brian Cox has written about this as well, in the Sun.

so this is me arming myself in protest, for whatever its worth:

This idea to ‘mothball a major facility’ is so stupid on so many levels, and because I am so angry about this its hard to even comprehensibly write this blogpost. However who will care? Besides the obvious scientists…. Especially now that the DIRECTOR of STFC said lets mothball these things, and if he says so, than there might be the mistaken message this could be a good idea!

So here are my thoughts on why this is A REALLY BAD IDEA!

1 – OK its expensive to run ISIS, Diamond, etc. And maybe making financial changes is needed, but there a couple of points about this – Other EU countries buy into to this, do you think they can just transfer their money to saving the UK economy in some other fashion?

It took billions of £’s, time and effort to build these facilities in the first place, shutting them down wastes all of that money and in the long-term isn’t economically smart.

Private, industrial companies PAY to run experiments at these facilities they don’t necessarily need to use these facilities in the UK, they can go to the US or Japan if they have to and pay them. Maybe, with a little CAREFUL THOUGHT, this private use could be increased?

2 – Short sighted, short-sighted short-sighted –
This kind of wholesale cuts are what the US did in the 70’s. After putting ALL sorts of money into alternative fuel source research, initially, when the oil crisis stopped, they took the money, away?!? Even to the level that Reagan took the solar panels off the White House, which the Carter administration put on! And as a result look where we are now.
Now, we think alternative fuel source research is a GOOD idea, and we missed 30 years of progress that could have been made (both technological and scientific) on this front, and now we are desperately trying to pay catch up in the middle of an economic crisis….

3 – Q-Dos,q-dos, q-dos
NEVER ever underestimate the value of being ‘the best in the world’ ISIS and Diamond are WORLD CLASS Facilities, that means something – people come here from ALL over the world to collaborate and do scientific research at at WORLD CLASS facility. You shut the facilities down, the government looks stupid and they don’t just start back up very easily, everyone has gone somewhere else. So say you decide to shut down a major facility and then you decide to turn them on again in say 2015- ALL of your expertise will be gone! and the UK’s science reputation will be lost – and given that the US and Japan are both building major facilities equivalent to ISIS and Diamond, why would you want to stay in the UK?

I realize there are counter-arguments to all of my points, but this idea of shutting the facilities is over the top, its throwing the baby out with the bath water. Oh and STFC might want to think about a new director…

Posted in UK Science policy | Tagged | 5 Comments

It is damn hard to admit you are wrong

Posted on August 20, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

And I don’t mean when you get the facts unequivocally wrong like in a pub quiz, you kind of have to say you were wrong when you find out Sylvia Plath wrote the Bell Jar after you claimed it was Charles Darwin.

What is hard to see – really hard to see – is when you only might be wrong. For instance you think X, someone asks you have you thought about Y? which might make you change your mind about X. Lots of us just a) choose to ignore Y, b) spend a long time justifying why really Y doesn’t matter or c) get really angry and argue more about X.

Its the standard criticism people a large portion of the scientific community have about Homeopathy. Practitioners of homeopathy say it works, scientific evidence says it doesn’t. Homeopaths ignore scientific evidence, so the story goes.

What is true is that data is data, data doesn’t lie – but the interpretation of data, and this is what scientists spend, arguably, most of their time doing, is an entirely different matter. Even though we don’t like to admit it, especially in science (because, after all scientists are supposed to be entirely rational), its hard to alter your pet theory when the data doesn’t quite match up, when it is not obvious that you might be wrong.

BUT, even though this is difficult, it is also part of the job. You must to try to weigh the evidence rationally, and when your theory is wrong just say it is wrong.

The Ben Goldacre/Samira Ahmed twitter ‘debate’ is a good example of this – Goldacre said he was wrong, but not without a flood of excuses…
(see here and here)

So Ben Goldacre tweeted that an upcoming news show (which included maths formula, he assumed was not kosher) was ‘bollocks’ on Twitter and invited heckler’s from the Twitter community to reiterate this point. Turns out, he was wrong, so admitting his mistake he tweeted:

BenGoldacre: @samiraahmedc4 humblest apologies, all the outward signs of bullshit were there, and was impossible to tell from PA report. sorry!

and quoting Suw Charman-Anderson:
It was entirely unsurprising that he should see Samira’s tweets and dismiss them out of hand, given the PR industry’s history of producing bunkum formulae to promote their own brands.

Maybe so, we all have reasons why we are wrong, but and here is the point… its a not easy to say what probably should be said. In this case something like – “I was wrong because I didn’t read the evidence and just had a knee-jerk reaction, even though most of my articles are about gathering evidence and in this case I didn’t bother before I reacted” – would have maybe been more appropriate. And more difficult.

Its much easier when you make a mistake to blame it on other stuff, rather than just saying ‘that was stupid, sorry’
I have caught myself doing this, and even with regard to my research, but in my job there is a standard I have to live up to. If I want to be worth my salt as scientist I have to try to read and collect the evidence before I just decide something is crap.

I think this is a good lesson, for lack of a better word, about what ‘evidence-based’ should mean. It means actually listening to the evidence, reading the evidence, before you say anything, even if it is from sources you don’t always respect. Evidence is not about the people or venue its reported in, it is about the evidence. This is not always so easy, but it is an ideal we should strive for.

Posted in bad science, science ethics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The mythology of funding – moving UK universities into the real world

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Sylvia McLain

I have a bunch of American friends who describe themselves at Italian-Americans, mostly because they have a somewhat recent relative from Italy and they have, through this relation, some sort of connection with this ‘old world’ Italy, which usually contains olive oil, great wine and prosciutto – but other than that seems to have not much real connection with the Italy of today. Italy is a modern industrial country (with the world’s 7th largest GDP in 2008), most Italians I know anyway don’t pick grapes or live in a village or press their own olive oil. Italy has moved on from the culture that the Italian-Americans I know identify with, yet this almost mythical idea of the old world still exists. When times were better and so the story goes, life was simple and concentrated entirely around good food and family.

But I think this is partially a myth and every culture has its myths. America with the good old pioneer spirit and livin’ off the land, when in reality most modern Americans really grow up in the suburbs. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a myth, a nice novel, a great memory, all good stuff. However it does become a problem when you live the myth believing it’s reality; in the fantasy world instead of the real one.

UK Higher education business models are quickly looking like they are based on some kind of myth, reminiscent of the myths we have in the new world about the old country of our ancestors. The education myth is that greatest education on the planet is in the UK, that many foreign students are dying to pay for it and that, in turn, supports the indigenous students and brings higher education to the forefront by increased funding, what’s not to love?

There is lots not to love, as pointed out in last week’s Economist, the ‘rich-world students’ now have more choices and, in short, UK universities need to stop being so complacent. This is a good point and this idea that foreign students will always come is also steeped in psychological mythology. The idea seems to rest on the old world appeal of Oxford, Cambridge, etc. and assumes it will always be there (the appeal not the Universities). And indeed it probably always will be, but that doesn’t mean that lots of (or indeed more) foreign students are going to continue to pay for it.

The Economist explicitly says they (Westminster and the individual Universities) need to “…concentrate on making British Universities as good as possible”.

And what does this take? Ideally, more higher education (HEFCE) funding, but that isn’t going to happen. At this point we know that isn’t going to happen, we can lament about it, but, at least now with the current government, it isn’t going to happen. I think the Con/Lib government (I am still wondering with the Lib went but this is another matter) are happy to just live under the current myth, so much so they actually CUT HEFCE funding – though Gerald Warner of the Telegraph disagrees and calls the cuts disguised increases, but that is another story.

So without the ideal, what does it take to keep universities at their best? One thing I think almost everyone agrees on is that they have to have money, its the only way to employ the best lecturers and professors; and importantly for science, pay for the equipment and laboratory space essential to its success.

So if universities have to have money and the government isn’t coughing it up, where can it come from?

Some of it has to come from student fees but not foreign students alone. The Economist suggests that domestic UK students should start paying for their education. I agree, ideally this wouldn’t need to happen, but thinking that the money is going to come from where it traditionally has at this point is living in myth. The old UK higher education model is that university is free for qualifying domestic students, but this old model only allowed a very small proportion of students to go to University, because it wasn’t so expensive for the state. But now an ever increasing proportion of (domestic) students are attending, hence the addition of top-up fees, and the idea that the government and foreigners can just pay for it, is again a big fat myth and not sustainable.

The caveat here is that there must to be funding available for less well-off students, but this is something that can be sorted out. A student loan service, like that which exists in the US, may be an answer for the UK. Student loans can be deferred until the graduate has a job which allows them to pay more easily and they put money, albeit indirectly, back into the institutions for others that benefited them. Done correctly, this could be a very potent social economic model for graduates and universities.

It is high time to start thinking about new economic models for UK universities and I agree with the Economist – a psychological change is needed. This new model cannot be based on the old idea that university education in the UK must be free for all (or almost free viz top up fees). Is it ideal for students to pay? No, but it is simply not realistic to think we can continue to live in the 1950’s under some elite mythological model where the government pays for everything. They don’t have any money and, at least in the current government, even if they do, they aren’t going to give it to Higher education anytime soon.

Posted in economics, higher education | Tagged , | 3 Comments