Of Chemistry Minds and Motives

The article "A Mind-Blowing Legacy" by Mark Peplow (RSC Publication Chemistry World July 2014) throws up some interesting concepts of "motives" when looking for new compounds. Shulgin's research into psychoactive compounds was probably motivated initially by pure scientific curiosity and then I wonder whether the addictive power of the chemicals he was working with (mescaline and MDMA) did not seduce him into a search for more mind-blowing compounds to try out on himself and his friends, all in the name of science. Was there a point at which the researcher was no-longer master of the "The Search" but instead had become the servant of "The Search"?


Mescaline, a plant alkaloid, is a compound available in nature as are the compounds cannabis, morphine and cocaine. Nature has provided us with a range of psychoactive compounds. However, scientists have also created totally artificial compounds such as MDMA (Ecstasy). Pure research into mind-blowing compounds is all very interesting initially but there must be some real point to it i.e. motive. Taking nature's natural psychoactive compounds and turning them into "molecules of salvation", such as morphine into a pain-killer for the suffering ........ gives meaning to the pursuit of science. It is simply awesome that altering one chemical group (an ethyl for a methyl) can lead to such an alteration of properties where a compound stops being a mind-blower and instead becomes a healing compound. This kind of highly technical and difficult chemistry can sometimes be boring compared with the excitement and entertainment of talking about "withdrawal" and "euphoria" (accompanied by graphic photographs) which now constitute the main subject matter of Drugs Chemistry in Forensic Science courses at some universities. Indeed the title Medicinal Chemistry is sometimes considered to convey subject matter that is too complex, and the more street-savvy word "Drugs"!! with all its promise of illicit excitement has replaced the word "Medicinal". University professors are known to be complicit in this change of focus.


It would be good for students to be in awe of the specificity of brain receptors and the wonderful way very tiny changes (requiring a huge amount of work by synthetic chemists) in a chemical molecule can have the most profound effects in the brain and how this knowledge can be applied intelligently to enhance the quality of life of others. For example, MDMA targets the 5HT receptors in the brain which are normally switched on by serotonin. Prolonged use of MDMA can lead to the depletion of serotonin. Serotonin is nature's brain chemical for keeping us happy. We do not want our serotonin levels to be depleted as it can lead to depression.


Shulgin had ample time to move from pure scientific curiosity and self-experimentation to the worthwhile application of his knowledge. Pure scientific knowledge must of course be acquired as a precursor to application. Do scientists have any responsibility for their work? I think they do; after all, scientists are also people, and as people, we all have a responsibility towards each other. Shulgin, knowing the power of the molecules he was working with, should have felt concerned. Is it possible that, after some time, any reservations he may have had about these molecules were slowing being eroded? Were the mind-blowing molecules he was working with not only driving him on to look for more mind-blowing molecules while at the same time relieving him of any sense of accountability? Servants obey their masters. Servants take orders and are not required to question or take responsibility for their actions. Scientists need to be masters of their search for knowledge; their motives need to remain constantly under self-scrutiny. When motives no longer matter, when research surges forward unquestioningly with a momentum of its own, dragging the researcher in its slip-stream, then the scientist has become the servant of the "The Search".

On a more mundane note, the discovery of these molecules leads naturally to the question of the use/misuse of these chemicals and whether to legalize their use such that valuable police time is freed up from the official pursuit of those using/mis-using these substances. The knock-on effect of allowing all these molecules to be accessible with impunity, will inevitably add to unwell people who will have to call upon our already over-burdened NHS.I think there is a junior doctors' strike looming. What a tangled web we weave!

Has the Educational "Berlin Wall" Received A Fatal Blow?

The long overdue scrutiny of Ofsted is happening now amidst a great deal of 'smoke-and-mirrors' political activity. It is irresponsible for the comfortably-off older generation to play politics with the education of our young. If Ofsted had been doing its job properly, we would not be dealing with the sorry results of the OECD findings. Therefore, it is entirely proper that new leadership be sought for Ofsted. Competent leadership at Ofsted is part of the business of returning Education in this country to the very high standards of the past. Competent environmental management might have mitigated the dreadful scenes of flood devastation we are all witnessing. We can no longer rely on the many unaccountable and expensive Quangos that supposedly run things for us. These highly paid professionals are more concerned with "looking good" rather than "being good". Whether in Educational or Environmental management, at the moment, success seems to measured not by results, but by the persuasiveness of the rhetoric.


Michael Gove's plans for State Schools are idealistic; we need idealism, vision and courage to take on the advocates of the "low, one-size-fits-all curriculum and let's socially engineer University intake" ideology. That we still have top-class Universities shows the resilience of past high standards, as even our best Universities have been under pressure to select students based on perceived potential "poor thing she/he comes from a disadvantaged background" rather than actual achievement. If Michael Gove's plan comes to fruition, in future, it will allow all selections for University candidates to once more be based upon true merit and achievement rather than on nebulous judgements flowing from SAQ profiles that accompany UCCAS applications.


Longer school hours, more academic content in the curriculum, removal of soft wishy-washy subjects, a broad-based baccalaureate-type selection of subjects and a range of extra-curricular activities for all students is, I believe, the tried and tested way to ensure all young people in this country benefit from this country's first-world status. It isn't trendy I know, but other successful countries know that this solid approach works. The return to tried and tested maintenance of our rivers by dredging may not have the glamour of the trendy "let's preserve our wildlife", but it just may save livelihoods and homes by increasing the capacity of our waterways.


The question remains whether Mr Gove's vision can ever be implemented. As I look at the army of flood victims and weary volunteers who are doing their best in these dire circumstances, they remind me of concerned (pushy?) parents who have struggled over the years against a tide of low expectations and the contrary winds of professional indifference. These parents are just like flood victims trying to do their best for their families. The desire to survive and succeed cannot come from the top alone, no matter how well-intentioned. Ultimately, the job only gets done because individuals (salaried or not) simply roll up their sleeves and get on with the job.


PS Talking of salaries, on the 13th of March 2014, The Times Health Correspondent, Chris Smyth, has written a seriously depressing article about an NHS chief (HR manager) who has quit the NHS but will continue to get £310,000/- for the next two years from the NHS whilst also drawing a salary as an "organisational development consultant (whatever does that mean?)" to the University of Leeds. Her area of expertise is apparently HR, training, leadership development and communication which she is passionate about. Heaven help the poor put-upon conned taxpayer, who I am certain, in a crisis, will not be able to call upon these "passionate" over-valued individuals, paid huge double salaries to do public sector non-jobs.

Public Service, Social Work, Charity & Goodness

I have been recently informed that people who make charitable donations are not "good" but only give to charity to avoid tax. This point of view was made known to me, during a lunch party last week, by a fully paid-up member of the Labour Party. The previous day, while having dinner with two young adults of ambivalent political inclinations, I was amused by their unfettered admiration for another individual who worked with autistic people and is paid handsomely by the government to do so, describing that individual as "good".

Is it possible that there is a general confusion about "goodness"? It is my understanding that when people give to Charity, they no longer have the use of that money for their own needs. This often means that they do without something; if the donation is small, it may be the sacrifice of a mere bar of chocolate. If the donation is big, it may mean doing without a holiday abroad. In contrast, when a person works with autistic people and receives a good salary for it, as this activity has entailed no sacrifice and indeed has been remunerated, it is clearly not an act of charity.

I believe that those who make sacrifices for others in Charity giving, have a greater claim to the description "good" than those who work for a salary in an area of public service that helps others. After all, if an individual has an inclination for working with the handicapped, the ill and the disadvantaged and does so at no sacrifice to themselves, then they are in fact doubly rewarded in finding a suitable niche and being well-paid to enjoy that niche. They cannot possibly be described as "good" as they are no different from any other person in the work-force and they are consumers of public wealth rather than the creators of public wealth.


Contrast this with creators of public wealth who regularly give to Charity; any excess money left over to such individuals can only be taxed up to a maximum of 45%. If these individuals choose not to give to Charity, then the 55% still remains available for personal consumption and enjoyment once 45% has been surrendered to the taxman/woman. Please also note that wealth creation happens in the private sector, with all the stresses of risk-taking and fearfully long hours of work; this is in stark contrast to the comfort and security of the wealth-consuming public sector

My blog-posts are usually about educational and academic matters. Could it be a sign of a defective education (might it be a subtle form of brain-washing?) when the fundamental differences between the true goodness of Charity-giving and shrewdness of well-paid employment in the "caring" part of the Public sector get confused? To go back to my starting point, all the three individuals who have prompted this blog are highly educated. I find worrying that, despite being so well-educated they may be mistaking shrewdness for goodness.

The New "Boy" Network in Academia

I think that there is a network in operation in this country, which I call the New "Boy" Network. "Boy" is in inverted commas because it is really a network of men and women. Having duly railed, ranted and stood against the Old Boy Network of "toffs" and public school gentlemen for decades, we now have, in its place, a much more pernicious network which I believe is willing to be anti-meritocratic in order to achieve certain social engineering ends. It is my observation, (and here, I will be delighted to be proved wrong), this network exercises freely, the last allowable form of political incorrectness, where it is acceptable to discriminate against people who have the appearance of coming from a certain so-called "posh" background. In a bizarre reversal of snobbery, such so-called "posh" individuals are the new social lepers and the very whiff of this background is sufficient to exclude the individual.


My blog-posts are invariably linked to academia and I specifically write about University academia. The proliferation of professors and senior academics in the last decade or so, draws candidates exclusively from the New "Boy" Network pool. Having sat on interview committees, I recall being embarrassed by the after-interview banter amongst those of us on the interview board, where I noted the impolite and scornful comments, the distaste, the clear prejudice and resentment that automatically eliminated people (men and women) who came across as "posh". Whether these people possessed the requisite qualifications or not, the moment they presented themselves and opened their mouths, speaking with what used to be called RP, there was not the slightest chance that these so-called "posh" people would be allowed to move onto the next stage of the application process.


In any true meritocracy, there will be a spread of ability amongst people of all backgrounds. It is logical then to expect that the recognition and reward of true meritocracy ought to lead inevitably to diversity in all organizations. It is my observation, however, that this diversity is no longer found in Academia. I have anecdotal evidence that certain other Public Service professions also suffer from this lack of diversity.


It is significant that Public Sector organizations have quantities of information and vast resources ploughed into Equality and Diversity Policies and Dignity at Work Protocols. Is it possible that the existence of these policies and protocols allows an organization to convince itself that it is in reality practising Equality and Diversity and showing Dignity to all? I feel that when an organization needs vast quantities of documentation to set out in detail what constitutes discrimination, and how to exercise fair-play, such an organization has conceded that it is, in fact, made up collectively, of people who are not merely immoral ((i.e. possessing a defective moral compass) but in fact amoral (i.e. possessing no moral compass at all).


The end result of the parochial and sometimes vengeful conduct of the New "Boy" Network, is that, this country as a whole, will lose out rapidly in the international race, relative to other countries who are hungry for global success. This will happen because, although a little of this sort of New "Boy" Network mentality can be safely absorbed throughout the country, once the subverted motives in candidate selection reaches a certain critical mass, (and I believe we are at that point now in Academic and Educational establishments in this country), we have set in motion, events that will lead to a downward spiral away from excellence throughout the whole country.


When uber highly-paid public servants, occupying the highest offices in our academic institutions, respond resentfully, with depressing regularity, in a "Pavlovian" fashion (recall Pavlov's dog experiment) to the sound of an RP accent, I cannot help wondering whether there is any point to Education in a moral vacuum. If the Old Boy Network was accused of cronyism and the much more destructive New "Boy" Network is most certainly guilty of both anti-meritocracy and cronyism, what are we going to do? Should we not be concerned about the urgent need to dismantle the New "Boy" Network for the greater good of this country's global academic standing?

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....".