GPs vs UK Vice-Chancellors:- Is It All About Money?

Today, the UK news reports about GP failings. We need to think about Publicly Funded Services a little more deeply. In the October 2013 issue of Chemistry in Britain,(RSC Publication p. 13), there is an article about slashing Croatian University Chancellors' pay by 30% because Mico Tatalovic says "...chancellors are, in reality, people bored with their primary scientific & educational work, whose main motive for staying at their function- sometimes longer than is allowed by law- is a big salary".


Did you know Vice Chancellors in British Universities earn much larger salaries than GPs? At the non-Russell group University where I used to work, our Vice Chancellor earns £205,000/-ish per annum. In her safe and risk-free job, there is no possibility of litigation, because she does not deal with life and death. Her role is administrative and ceremonial, complete with robes, processions and trumpet fanfares at Congregations. Under her management, the University has dropped, internationally, 17 places in one year (2012-2013), amongst the subset of newer Universities (see Telegraph article by Edward Malnick; "Modern Universities are Losing Out to their Rivals in the Far East"). The drop would be even larger if all Universities were taken into account. Despite this disgraceful performance, there is no requirement for public accountability and the trumpet fanfares, honorary accolades, robed processions, expensive wining and dining continue unabated, courtesy of the public purse.


In the UK, GPs, face life and death decisions several times a day for long hours and can face litigation for iatrogenic events and inadvertent malpractice. Even though we have a free Health Service, people in the UK feel they are entitled to an US-type accountability from the NHS. The question is whether this expectation is reasonable. Do we have the money to deliver defensive medicine? A little intelligence applied to this issue will tell us that the NHS in 2013 is required to deliver a several-fold increase in public service compared to the NHS that was created 60 years ago. In 1950, it was tax-payer funded penicillin and bandages. Now it is tax-payer funded cancer drugs, well-person clinics, screenings of all sorts, extremely expensive cutting-edge technology applied from cradle to the considerably-delayed grave.


Basic Economics 101 teaches us that we have "unlimited wants and limited means". It is foolish to expect perfection from all GP surgeries. Mathematics & statistical treatment of data teaches us that there is a normal Gaussian bell-shaped distribution curve for most things. Some GP surgeries will statistically fall under the left lower part of the curve; they are the less good ones. There will be excellent ones that fall under the right side of the curve. The Media needs to learn what balanced reporting is. It is NOT describing the groups of GP Practices that lie on the left or right of the Bell-curve, but instead the ones that fall under the middle i.e. the majority. If the majority (and here we need some percentages derived from raw data) do fall within the dome of the curve, then there is no story and the temptation to create one should be resisted at all costs, because it lays bare what we already know, courtesy of the OECD findings; i.e. that we in the UK, are not so great academically, at Mathematics.


Given any nation's limited means and the people's unlimited wants, a day will come, when we may all have to pay privately for medical treatment & University education; when that happens, Vice Chancellors in non-Russell group Universities will earn a whole lot less and GPs will earn a whole lot more.

Forgiveness, Mandela & Future Conduct

I wonder whether there is a global competition underway amongst world leaders, to wear the most uncomfortable hair shirt, in repentance for Nelson Mandela's lost years? Yes, he is iconic, a giant of the 20th century, a legend, but can anything we say or do now make the slightest difference to him?


He is on Another Shore. I am certain he is far too busy having the most fabulous "knees-up" in a Grand Reunion with friends and family who have gone before him, to care about the solemn speeches and the fulsome tributes raining down upon him. In this life, he was allowed 23 years of freedom following the 27 years in prison. Those 23 years of freedom came to him after he turned 70-something. Imprisoned in his prime, for what was, in effect, a charge of being "racist against white men" and having the cheek to ask for the right to vote, I believe, that it is so very convenient for all of us that he forgave those who injured him. The consequence of his forgiveness now allows room for a repeat of what happened; after all, if Mandela could forgive, we can all learn from him, and forgive, should we similarly suffer. It is also useful for us to be able to inflict suffering on others and then say to them, "Look at Mandela; he could forgive. You should forgive too."


We ought to remind ourselves that people today are still being wronged, deprived of their freedom, treated brutally, subject to a "disciplining" by so-called "authorities". The universal knowledge of the Holocaust did not stop Nelson Mandela from facing 27 years in prison. I very much doubt that after today, we will become better people; indeed, raising monuments, verbal and concrete, in Mandela's honour, may actually liberate us to once more commit the same evil offences.


I recall the irony of a particular UK academic institution where I worked, in proud possession of a student union building named after Nelson Mandela, displaying the identical conduct towards ethnic minority staff that Nelson Mandela suffered; i.e. administrating cruel punishment for the cheek of suggesting some sort of representation for overseas (n.b full fee-paying) students. Couched in language and monuments that attempt to hide the ugliness of intransigent human nature, sometimes it would appear that the tributes "doth protest too much".

The OECD Verdict on UK Education

As the old saying goes, " the proof of the pudding is in the eating...". Globally, our academic pudding is clearly not that great. I am at this very moment listening to the Shadow Secretary say something about unqualified teachers teaching in classrooms and that somehow the decade preceding 2012 is irrelevant to the OECD's very disappointing findings on Education in the UK. As an academic all through that period, the one thing I do know is that throwing money at this problem will not solve it. Indeed, success in imparting knowledge to our young now appears in inverse proportion to the level to which Educational institutions and their staff have been indulged.


I believe that each teacher must possess a passion for teaching coupled with a desire to see young people succeed in life. If either of these guiding principles is absent in our educators, failure is inevitable. My experience at Teaching College was that it was, first and foremost, political in its outlook. Later as an University Academic, I found amongst my policy-making, meeting-attending, course-gerrymandering colleagues, a complete absence of any ethos apart from, a loyalty to the narrow type of people who now preside over virtually all academic institutions in this country. Educators and Academics now function as a pack rather than as intelligent individuals.


It is a matter of fact that there has been a systematic "cleansing", in Academia & Education, of the type of old-fashioned, highly qualified individual who possesses a love of knowledge and a zeal to share that love of knowledge with others. These old-fashioned (now contraband) teachers of the past, vocationally drawn to the teaching profession, accepted a lesser financial reward for the privilege of Public Service. I remember being inspired and motivated by such individuals amidst battered desks, old laboratories (free from the sometimes tyrannical foolishness of Health & Safety), dark libraries filled with dog-eared books, scintillating ideas, sparkling conversation and enthusiasm. Such individuals are now deemed seditious and dangerous, because their commitment is to Education rather than to the very highly paid "big-wigs" in our sterile & newly-refurbished Educational Institutions.


I have pontificated, at length, in previous blog-posts about the many, many things that are so very wrong in Education and Academia. With the large amount of wealth provided to now make them solvent, the money is being used to aggrandize the self-importance of those institutions. Our educational establishments will remain mired in their self-promoting & self-righteous armour as long as their failure does not hit academics and educationalists in the pocket. In the meantime, their attitude is that, globally, our young people will "just have to lump it....".

Respect or Grovelling To Bullies?

Key Thought
Respect must be earned. Those who demand respect are usually bullies who very rarely show the respect they themselves demand. Collective bullying against one individual is a documented characteristic of a social phenomenon known as "Identification Based Fellowship".


I have been following the sorry "Andrew Mitchell Plebgate" saga since it started 14 months ago. The thing that has suddenly struck me for the first time is that Mr Mitchell actually apologised for not "showing respect to the Police". The whole issue of "Respect" is interesting. We have the Human Rights Act 1998, whose purpose is ultimately to safeguard society's Respect for the individual. Mafia bosses (please see "Some Like It Hot!") demand Respect with a capital "R" or else.......! Apart from situations where we demand respect for our loved ones, such as in hospital care or for children in school, why do organized groups demand so much respect for themselves?


The inevitable pursuance of this question leads us to ask, when does an Organization's demand for respect become a demand for a certain amount of grovelling tantamount to bullying? Sometimes, an Office commands respect, but, the incumbent office-bearer does not deserve respect for perhaps not fulfilling the requirements of that Office. Are we then bound to show respect simply because of the Office and regardless of the conduct of the office-bearer? Similarly, if an Organization deserves respect, but is conducting its affairs in a way that cannot possibly command respect, does it deserve to be respected? Is it entitled to demand respect regardless of its own conduct?


We need to ask what the difference is, between commanding respect and demanding respect. Some people command respect by virtue of their character, knowledge and/or ability, regardless of their Office. Indeed, they may not even hold an office; for example, in certain cultures, the oldest member of an extended family is accorded a very special place of respect in deference to their life experience. Sometimes, an individual commands respect for demonstrating unusual courage under fire, such as that shown, right through history, by PoWs; they would not however, have been given any respect from the enemy side.


In organizations, the hierarchical set-up implies the lesser must respect the greater. In our present hierarchy, here in the UK, is a Cabinet Minister above or below the Police? Is the Cabinet, made of elected Ministers of the UK, placed above or below an unelected Police Force? In institutions, such as Universities, is Human Resources (HR)& Management expected to have respect for Academics or is it the other way around? What criteria determine Hierarchy? For example, in a University (an institution of Learning), is it about educational qualifications, training & experience or is it about who possesses, regardless of intellect & education, the administrative muscle of the University? If there is an inability to command respect for proper reasons, will Conduct morph into a pitiless, bullying demand for Respect?


I have always thought, that, like the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Energy, there is a Spectrum of Conduct that ranges from Nazi-type control(NTC) to Gentle Consensual Decision-making (GCD). This Spectrum of Conduct is non-political and its elements therefore cannot be classified as ideologically Left or Right. It is, in fact, about respect for the individual human being, regardless of political affiliation. With the Mafia, it is reasonable to suggest that it draws on the NTC end of the Spectrum of Conduct for its Rules on Governance. We know the criteria for Mafia/Nazi leadership (H) must be in inverse relationship to a capacity for pity (P).

H = 1/P
This is a logical inference, since, should Respect be perceived to be lacking, the Head must be able to order violence against the offender. Any background compassion (k), must be kept to a minimum and the ability to be severe, (s), must be in proportion to the perceived lack of Respect; to be effective in demanding Respect, (s) must be substantial i.e. large. This gives us the equation for the right Mafia boss:-

H = k + s(1/P)
We can go on adding in various factors to refine this basic equation, but this simple equation will suffice for a mere blog. I wonder whether the Mafia Model of Governance, with its ruthless efficiency, isn't the one employed by Human Resources (HRs) in various supposedly non-Mafia institutions? The way to assess that would be to look for certain characteristics. I mention only one characteristic in this blog; it is a loyalty to a "Band of Brothers".


In the December 2012 issue of Scientific American, Michael Shirmer's article "The Alpinists of Evil" provides empirical evidence that it is not individual political inclinations that cause people to collectively attack one person or group of people. Instead, it is a unity to a Band of Brothers, in a phenomenon described as "Identification-based Fellowship". This loyalty is the driving force behind collective bullying. Lead by the biggest unconscionable bully, i.e. the person with the largest value of (H) in my equation, such Identification-Based Fellowship groups function to protect the group by demanding Respect for it. On p.65 of the article, Lt Col David Grossman is quoted as saying "On Killing", ".....the soldiers primary motivation.......was not to politics or ideology, but a devotion to his Band of Brothers. There is a powerful process of peer pressure in which the individual cares so deeply about his comrades and what they think about him,....".


This must mean that, if an individual appears different from this Band of Brothers, that individual is an "outsider". It is therefore essential to the pride of the group that the individual acknowledge the existence of the Band of Brothers by showing Respect. If Respect is not shown, the individual, deemed an outsider and consequently a lesser form of life, must be severely dealt with, and destroying that lesser form of life is acceptable. Destroying the individual's life, reputation, career and family-life is merely "collateral damage" in the business of upholding the honour of the Band of Brothers. In "Plebgate", what exactly was this huge lack of Respect that demanded such extreme punishment? It was the alleged use of the word "pleb". A word that may or may not have been said.


Is it decent or civilized that we, in this country, consider it acceptable to allow a Band of Brothers to set upon one individual, confiscate his career, kill his reputation, subject him to prolonged abuse with the ultimate object of completely destroying him for one alleged word? Just like a cat playing with a mouse before it kills it?


Personally, I would not worry or be offended if someone calls me a "pleb" or "chav" or "oik" etc... ; after all, "a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.......".

The Parable of the Talents: Forced Burials

Key Thought
The only way for less-gifted individuals to appear successful, is to force other more-gifted individuals into obscurity. This is most efficiently accomplished by using the apparently commendable policy of "social engineering"


Do you know the Parable of The Talents? A quick recall of the salient points given 2000 years ago, are as follows:- the Master is about to make a long journey. He calls his three servants and gives out five talents, two talents and one talent respectively. The servants are required to use the talents and multiply them, and to be prepared to give An Account of their stewardship on the Master's return. They are told that there will be consequences for poor stewardship. The story tells us that the servant with five talents worked hard and multiplied the original five to ten. The second servant multiplied the two talents into four. However, the third servant chose to simply bury his one talent. On the Master's return, at The Accounting, the first two profitable and multi-talented servants were amply rewarded for their diligence and good stewardship. The unprofitable servant who buried his one talent, justified his actions, saying that it was a pointless exercise to multiply the wealth for an unjust Master etc. etc. As one might expect, the Master dealt appropriately with the unprofitable servant.


If we fast-forward to November 2013, let us consider a possible hypothetical evolution of the Parable of the Talents. Let us suppose the one-talented servant, with his propensity for talent-burial and still angry with the unfairness of the Master's original distribution of talents, decides that, with a little organization and planning, it might be more fun to bury the multiple talents of the other two servants, rather than his own one talent. For the unprofitable servant, it would achieve two important objectives; firstly, revenge against the Master for inherent unfairness of the initial endowment, and secondly, the satisfaction of subjugating, frustrating and ultimately destroying the other two more talented servants.


The unprofitable servant decides that the first thing to do is to find other unprofitable and disgruntled servants with one talent, get organized into a union of some sort (UOTUS), and promote the concept of social engineering as a method of correcting unfairness. Once the union is formed and the concept of social engineering is elevated, through systematic propaganda, to the level of a "Greater Good", the second step is to make a list of servants to whom the Master has unfairly given more than one talent and work out a plan to force those multi-talented servants to either re-distribute or bury their talents; after all, this is a War against Injustice.


The unprofitable servant knows it is important to know the enemy and so makes a study of the multi-talented servants. The unprofitable servant notes that multi-talented servants, are usually quite individual, non-unionised and happily engrossed in their own talent-multiplication process. Consequently, he tells UOTUS, that it should be easy to force these individuals to bury their talents alive if they are dealt with one at a time.


The union of the one-talented servants (UOTUS) decide at their meetings, that for the "Greater Good", any means may be used since the "ends justifies the means". In this war, as in other wars, Truth becomes the first casualty. It is perfectly acceptable to lie about the enemy to win a war. A generalized formula of attack is devised that can be specifically tailored to inflict maximum damage on any specific multi-talented individual. Several meetings later, the battle plan is ready and now moves into action. The union of the one-talented servants (UOTUS) begins the attack and works its way systematically down the list of the unsuspecting and unarmed multi-talented servants.


As the haze over the scene of attack clears, the camera long-shot of the battle landscape appears littered with pockets of the multi-talented servants, each held captive by a group of gloating one-talented servants. Zooming-in on the distressing scene, it is clear that each multi-talented servant is being forced to dig a hole and bury their multiple still-living talents. The brutal forced live burials continue unabated, despite the screams of the still-living talents. Sometime later, each multi-talented servant, cowered, and deeply afraid of the Union of the One-Talented Unprofitable Servants (UOTUS), wonders when the Master will return and demand An Accounting.

Student Representation or Political Grooming?

Key Thought
Academic institutions exist for the purpose of imparting marketable knowledge and skills. Academic institutions are not meant to function as political recruiting offices and should be deterred from such activity. Elderly undergraduate students are, by definition, not representative of the typical undergraduate, and should be disqualified from student representation.


Have you noticed how important date of birth is? In almost all official and quasi-official dealings, whether in cyber-space or on paper documentation, this one fact is considered a compulsory field i.e. it must be filled out. In the world of CRB checks, at 17 years and 364 days, a person is deemed vulnerable and must be protected from those who are one day or more older! The consequence of this patent absurdity is that, on your 18th birthday, should you wish to work with any one who is one day or more younger than you, you must be CRB checked and cleared!


If this obsession with age and age-related groupings is fundamental to our governance, then logically, one should ask whether it is seemly or appropriate that an almost 50-year old undergraduate is allowed to represent an entire cohort of 18-year old students at University. It must be obvious that the chasm in age, experience and goals between such a 50-year individual and an 18-year old must surely be greater that the tiny gap between an 18-year old and a 17-year old!


The fundamental differences between a 50-year old undergraduate and an 18-year old undergraduate are legion; I mention only three; Firstly, one learns about the cognitive process at teaching college and we are taught that the steep learning curve of youth starts to flatten with age and learning becomes more difficult, such that an almost 50-year old may find his ability to learn highly technical subjects such as Maths and Science is greatly reduced compared to his 18-year old classmates. Secondly, such an individual probably carries historical socio-political baggage. Thirdly, the very nature of representation implies identification with common needs of the group (ladies who have borne a child would never countenance men pretending to know what it feels like to have a baby). A 50-year old cannot pretend to be 18; indeed that is exactly how the darker elements of grooming begin in cyber-space; i.e. the "groomer's" pretence of being the same age as the "groomee".


Within academic institutions for over 18-year olds, the dangers of such grooming masquerading as representation ought to be self-evident and cause deep concern. The consequences of grooming very rarely benefits the student/"groomee" as the student rep/"groomer's" motives must be self-interested and the object is always to further the interests of the student rep/groomer.


What might those self-interests be? I suggest just a few; firstly, such an individual, having not accomplished a degree at the time when batch mates of his own age did it, may feel a need to compensate by advancing himself/herself in importance through non-academic union activities. Secondly, the individual may lobby to reduce academic rigour in highly technical subjects because of his own learning-curve issues. Thirdly,such an individual may seek, to influence young people to espouse causes whose roots reach into the student rep's past.


I recall hearing such a student rep state, during the time of the student protests in London, that the Mill Bank Building was a legitimate target for an arson attack. The University authorities and academic staff were aware of this, but many, being much of a much-ness in age, and consequently able to identify with a common socio-political outlook and past, indulged the student representative's views. It mattered very little to this older demographic that arson is a crime and an 18-year old ought not to be encouraged to get a criminal record.


I also recall that academic rigour was dramatically reduced, while entertainment content of modules was increased over the course of three years, as a result of relentless lobbying by this student representative. The long-term repercussions for the future employability of young graduates affected by the "dumbing down" of their very expensive degrees appeared inconsequential.[Please note that with a University degree, there is no money-back guarantee if a student fails to get degree-related employment].


Finally, I recall this almost 50-year old student rep systematically advising/grooming students & young student reps, to defy and professionally damage selected staff who expressed concern about these subversive activities.


With so much obsessive concern about vetting and age in the UK, why is no-one vetting student representatives who have so much influence upon young lives?

Research & The Emperor's New Clothes

Key Thought
Academic institutions should be judged on whether their students are fit for purpose in the job market and not by their research ratings; the drive for research ratings leads to dishonesty in research.

The October issue of the RSC publication Chemistry In Britain has a disturbing article on research. One of my posts was about why researchers need not necessarily be good teachers. In that post, I deferred to their specialist expertise (knowing more and more) in their very specific field (about less and less) but, this particular article by Patrick Walter (Chemistry World Oct 2013 Vol 10 no.10, p.8-9) suggests that at times research may be faked, making researchers more game players rather than truly on an altruistic quest for scientific truth.

A paper in Organometallics on the synthesis of palladium and platinum complexes, allowed a bit of communication to slip through which proof-readers did not pick up. In it the authors said "insert NMR data here...make up  an elemental analysis...." Does this mean "please invent some data"?


[Very simply put, NMR analysis reveals information about the number and type of hydrogen/carbon atoms in a compound, and elemental analysis tells us about the percentages of elements in a compound, for example, 40% Carbon, 12% Hydrogen etc].


Is it possible that "Research" is now perceived as a lofty activity, proof of an exalted first class intellect, such that papers emanating from Research activity is an end that provides endorsement of that intellectual superiority? If so, Research then stops being an activity that flows from a real curiosity and love of Science of the Watson and Crick variety.



It should be noted that teachers are not allowed rights over their own intellectual property; the teaching materials belong to the Institution the teacher works for. Should that Institution wish, it can commandeer, alter, confiscate and re-allocate a teacher's lecture notes with impunity. Sometimes, the most successfully-run modules are redistributed to research-active staff, once the teacher has developed the module.


It is inevitable that three evils arise from this dichotomy of regard (may I call it double standards?); firstly, a University teacher's activity is deemed second-class and not worthy of recognized authorship; secondly (flowing from the first), a University researcher (and students) may despise teaching and teaching-only academics who are by definition, invisible in the publishing world; thirdly, researchers, motivated by self-interest, may do anything to get the paper to the journal, whether right or wrong, as revealed by the several examples cited in Patrick Walter's RSC Chemistry in Britain article.



I recall, how, at work, a regular update would be sent round by Admin, by group e-mail to the entire department announcing a new paper had been published by someone within the department and that paper was now up on the Publication Board, prominently displayed in the Departmental Foyer for all to see. Teaching activities never attracted any such recognition. Academic Institutions sometimes parachute new staff in, who are just about to publish, so that the paper will count towards the new Institution, rather than the old Institution that actually nurtured the Research. It's all very unsatisfactory. I suppose with some of these research publications, it takes a pair of innocent and honest eyes to perceive and cry out aloud, like the little boy in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, "Why, mother, there is nothing there!!"

Why Do Little Children Die in the UK?

Key Thought Sometimes whistle-blowers are not only ignored, they are made scapegoats. Protecting the vulnerable needs to happens because we have a conscience and not because it makes us look good.

We live in such  an advanced  & well-heeled nation; land of the Magna Carta.  We send off aid and support to other parts of the world and raise funds for Comic Relief, and yet today, the government is talking about taking over Children's Services at Birmingham City Council. I believe a certain very well paid person was given, not long ago, a six-figure settlement for her unfair dismissal over the Baby P affair. Yesterday, the heart-breaking story was about Little Boy Khan, left dead in his mother's home for several days. Clearly, the dividing line between barbarism and civilized behaviour is paper-thin.

I recall, a few years ago, being asked by a colleague during the working day, to keep an eye on her baby son, in her office, while she dashed off to deliver a lecture. I remember being dismayed, that I could not help her out of pity for the child, as I had to teach as well. The little fellow was sitting on the filthy floor eating food of it and crying for his mother. I believe a student was then pressed into service, to do the required baby-sitting. Was that student CRB-checked? I do not know. I was very angry with my colleague for her heartlessness towards a baby who could not report her. For the salary she was receiving, she ought to have made proper provision for the child or taken the day off.

Sometime later, I remember mentioning my concern in rather warm terms to our mutual line manager. Nothing was ever done about the incident, but my line-manager was seriously displeased with me.

I now wonder whether  others like me, at the thin end of the wedge, just when possible neglect was noticed, tried to alert "higher-ups" that something might be amiss in the cases of Baby P and Little Boy Khan? Were they ignored or black-listed?

Does anyone actually care? After all Social Service is just a job which helps pay the bills.  Are all of these truly horrific stories merely news fodder to keep journalists busy and the public ghoulishly entertained? Do we still have a conscience when no one is looking?

Laboratory Technique, the Inexperienced & Non-Experts

Key Thought Solid, serious teaching at University, replaced with "science is such fun!" lessons, caters for only for those who were poorly taught as School. However, it is precisely this group of the poorly-taught who need rigorous and intensive remedial teaching, delivered by experienced academics who have a proven track record of successful teaching

Going through reams of old and recent University Chemistry laboratory manuals, the thing that strikes me is their change in character.  In the past, and I mean about 8 years ago, students were expected to read and intelligently understand scientific protocols set down in full sentences. Such manuals were prepared by proper academics and experienced scientists. Recent so-called updated "user-friendly" ones, re-written by lab technicians and demonstrators, present lab protocols, light on the science and heavy on cartoon-type pictures, complete with the odd joke in speech bubbles. Does this have any implications for learning outcomes? I think it has.  Thoughtful, serious lab work has been replaced with the lazy following of cartoons, enjoying the feeling that "science is fun". I cite one example of a possible repercussion.

A certain brand-new demonstrator, determined to have no interference in her first year of employment, wanted to manage the lab session without the usual health and safety supervision provided by the experienced academic. An accident occurred which any experienced  scientist would have spotted was the consequence of poor health and safety training, based entirely on a lack of fore-sight; after all, fore-sight is the reward of experience. Student X had heated  liquid A in a test-tube while chatting and  pointing the test-tube at another student Y. Liquid A bumped and  student Y got splashed. This same experiment had run safely for a decade, with no accidents, under the experienced eye of the past senior demonstrator (now retired).

Following on from this incident, the collective decision of managerial non-experts and the inexperienced self-justifying demonstrator, was to immediately replace liquid A with water! It hardly mattered to this group of decision-makers that boiling water can also scald!

Would it not have been better to teach science students to never point a test-tube at anyone when heating any liquid, including water? Not to talk when doing experiments?

One further thought:- I suppose I mustn't ask why 18 year-olds had not already learnt this in school.

Hypocritical Athena Swann on Poppy Day

Key Thought
It is anti-meritocratic that, after 6 decades of gender equality and opportunity, the existence of University organizations such as Athena Swann are considered justifiable. A pure meritocracy, free from gender (or any other) bias, is essential for the recovery of high academic standards in the UK.


Yesterday was Poppy Day. As the day drew to a close, after the parades and the services, there were readings from war poems written by those who survived long enough to immortalize their experiences and memories in words. The darkness, the despair, the ugliness and the pain were once more remembered. They were, without exception, young men.

Since the close of the 2nd World War, the UK has enjoyed voting rights for everyone,  universal health care, free education and from the swinging 60's, freedom in just about anything! In the last 70 years, the sky has been the limit if you wanted to rise.Then why are women in the West still demanding a leg-up for gender reasons?

Athena Swann is an organization that wishes to advance women in academia because women are apparently under-represented in academia. A head-count, however, will reveal we already have a plethora of female professors, vice chancellors and consultants. They were already present in my granny's generation. Considering, women were in the majority after the 2 World Wars, had already been employed outside the home in the War effort, and had equal rights to education, health etc., is it not hypocritical to promote them in today's day and age on gender?

I once overheard a conversation between two young ladies in a college of further education. This was in 2001. Education, they agreed was a bit of a bore and it would be so much easier to start up an infant and get put onto the top of the waiting list for housing. I do believe in a matter of a few months, these young ladies achieved their object, and were, the following year, seen proudly wheeling prams.

In remembering those who laid down their lives for others in the Great Wars, it is honest to recall their gender, their youth and their lost futures.

Rip-Off Britain-The University Sector

Key Thoughts The University sector does not value properly experienced, highly qualified and dedicated teachers. Over-valued University researchers are duplicating R & D that can be funded by the private sector. No-one appears concerned for the consequences of poor quality and incomplete University teaching. Please note that University sector salaries are hugely expensive to the UK.

A few weeks ago, I read in Letters section of The Times that "University students deserve to be taught by the best researchers". The University Sector of the UK is tax-payer funded. It's purpose is to educate over-18 year olds such that they will be able to (a) get a better job than they would have without their degree and (b) pay back their debt to the tax-payer over time (c) enhance the greater good of the country by being part of a higher skills set.

The reality of paying £9 0000/- per annum for a degree is that, if the student, on graduation, never gets a job worth at least £21 000/- per annum, their debt to the tax-payer will never be paid back.

So the quality of that incredibly expensive education is pivotal to justifying the hugely expanded and now absurdly expensive University sector at a time when ordinary people feel squeezed. [Privately funded Universities are of course accountable to no-one but themselves].

Researchers and RAE ratings are used to determine the position of a University on League Tables. Does this in reality translate into a majority of quality graduates per University?  Is it about plush student accommodation, fancy student unions, "friends"-style cosy corners in libraries, and wearing gowns? I think not.

The single most important factor in producing a quality graduate is good teaching by highly skilled committed teachers. The anecdotal evidence flowing from this sector, however, indicates, that highly qualified and very skilled teachers are now being replaced by postgraduates who are still en-route to Masters and PhDs. In short, teaching is being done on the cheap since University fees went up, and research academics, so lost in their research work, bound by the requirements of their contract, teach with reluctance merely to fulfil contractual obligations.  Also, as specialists in their area of research, researchers know more and more about less and less, and can enthuse for example, about the left-side of a protein they are studying, oblivious of the patchy knowledge they are imparting. This then translates into an incomplete education, and defective skills set for the student.

By analogy, if we can imagine an hypothetical NHS in which Consultants will deal with General Practice and the traditional GP-role will be dispensed with; such an NHS will try to produce an effective service using only NHS Direct and Consultants!  Such an NHS would be an inefficient and possibly dangerous rip-off for the British public.

Why have we not spotted this worrying situation in our very expensive University sector?

Fukushima Fallout, Cancer and Lifestyle

Key Thoughts Institutions such as the World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRFI) need to juxtapose their lifestyle advice against the reality of radioactive fallout that is spreading through our oceans. Joined-up thinking may help mitigate the development of cancer. Epidemiological data collection that ignores the greater environmental backdrop results in incomplete research.


Yesterday, an e-mail from one of my past professors reminded that Fukushima is still out there. Attached to his e-mail was an 11 minute U-tube video which I couldn't watch because the thing kept stopping 20 seconds after starting. So I just tried to recall what I could about the isotopes associated with Fukushima and here is a little bit that I have put together.
 (1) In late October of this year, rain cause a radioactive leak of Strontium 90, a radioactive isotope produced during nuclear reactions. Strontium has an affinity for, and can be accumulated by, bones, where it remains potent for many years and is implicated in several types of cancer in human beings.[ Indeed, research done at Imperial College, London, resulted in the creation of Stronbone, which is 12% soft bone and a 40% carrier for Strontium Sr 2+, the purpose of which is to encourage osteoblasts but reduce activity of osteocytes].
The other three isotopes of interest are Iodine 131, Caesium 134 and Caesium 137.
(2) Iodine 131 fortunately has a half-life of 8 days and considering the original event at Fukushima was 2 years ago, most of the iodine 131 should have decayed.
(3) Caesium 134 has a half-life of about 2 years, so the original quantity in the fallout should now be about half.
(4) Caesium 137, however, is a worry; it has a half-life of about 30 years, which means it is still largely all there. Caesium 137 is a fission product of uranium-235; Cs-137 decays by beta emission to meta-stable Ba-137 (half-life about 150 secs) which decays emitting gamma radiation.
Gamma radiation is electromagnetic radiation of very high frequency i.e. very energetic, and is ionizing. This means it is biologically hazardous. Cs 137 is usually combined with other elements to form salts which easily move and spread in nature because  these salts are unfortunately very soluble in water. Consequently, one would expect  that Cs137 salts have moved quite a long way from the original spill through ocean currents.
 The World Cancer Research Fund Institute functions, through its assessment of epidemiological data, to encourage and possibly legislate in favour of healthy life styles to avert or reduce the incidence of cancer. This ethos is excellent for the greater good, especially in countries where cancer care is funded  by the public purse. However, what does one do when Cs 137 salts are sloshing about in our briny blue oceans?