TABLE OF CONTENTS

2010/10/12 CASE: A Mixed Prognosis for Medical Research................................................ 82

2010/10/12 Guardian Science Blog: A sleeping beast awakes on the Science is Vital rally ... 83
2010/10/12 Exquisite Life: What are chances of a "Progressive Browne" deal on student
fees being implemented? .................................................................................................... 85
2010/10/12 Exquisite Life: Why David Cameron may have to nuke the Lib Dems on student
fees ...................................................................................................................................... 86
2010/10/13 Exquisite Life: Vince Cable wobbles on unlimited tuition fees .......................... 88
2010/10/13 The Great Beyond: Scientists push nuke cuts ................................................... 88
2010/10/13 The Great Beyond: Student fees won't solve science teaching funding gap ..... 89
2010/10/13 In verba: Science and learning in parliament .................................................... 90
2010/10/13 RCUK: UK research is key to business productivity and economic growth ........ 91
2010/10/13 Exquisite Life: David Willetts’ straight talk on innovation ................................. 91
2010/10/13 BBC Science News: Science cuts 'risk economic harm' ..................................... 93
2010/10/13 Exquisite Life: Beware political compromises on Browne................................. 94
2010/10/13 Guardian CiF: Cut military R&D, not science funding ........................................ 95
2010/10/13 Guardian Science News: Military research should bear brunt of science cuts,
say leading scientists............................................................................................................ 98
2010/10/13 Exquisite Life: The papers on Browne............................................................. 100
2010/10/13 Guardian Science Blog: Scientists lobby parliament to halt cuts..................... 101
2010/10/14 The Great Beyond: No cap-and-trade? Focus on R&D... ................................. 103
2010/10/14 The Great Beyond: ‘Bonfire of the quangos’ singes science advice ................ 104
2010/10/14 alice bell blog: Science blogs (Eureka) ............................................................ 105
2010/10/14 Exquisite Life: Nick Clegg's terminal dilemma on student fees ....................... 106
2010/10/15 CASE: Supporting research; not just for scientists and engineers ................... 107
2010/10/15 BBC News: Spending Review: Universities 'to face £4.2bn cut' ...................... 109
2010/10/15 Guardian Science Blog: TAM London: Geeks and comedians gather to celebrate
critical thinking .................................................................................................................. 111
2010/10/15 New York Times: Universities in Britain Brace for Cuts in Subsidies ............... 112
2010/10/15 Martin McQuillan Blog: If you tolerate this… Lord Browne and the Privatisation
of the Humanities .............................................................................................................. 114
2010/10/15 Guardian Science Blog Martin: The TAM London 2010 live blog .................... 117
2010/10/15 Exquisite Life: Euroscience is here to help both science and society .............. 145
2010/10/15 Exquisite Life: Nick Clegg announces £150m "student premium" for poor
students ............................................................................................................................. 146
2010/10/16 Guardian Science Letter: Cuts in defence research won't help science .......... 147
2010/10/16 Guardian Science Blog Martin: The Nightingale Collaboration ....................... 147
2010/10/17 GIMPYBLOG: TAM London and Champagne Skeptics - the haute bourgeoisie of
critical thinking .................................................................................................................. 151
2010/10/17 FT:Top science facility to expand .................................................................... 167
2010/10/18 Science, Reason and Critical Thinking (Crispian Jago): TAM London 2010: A
Critical Review ................................................................................................................... 168
2010/10/18 BBC Viewpoint: Science 'critical for UK economic future' ............................... 169
2010/10/18 BBC Viewpoint: Science cuts 'could lead to brain drain' ................................. 171
2010/10/18 CASE: Reviewing the Browne Review ............................................................. 174
2010/10/18 New Statesman: The age of scientific discovery is over .................................. 177
2010/10/19 Exquisite Life: Beginner's Guide to the Browne Review of Student Fees ........ 179
2010/10/19 FT: Osborne cuts to usher in ‘sober decade’ .................................................. 180
2010/10/19 Guardian Science News: Spending review spares science budget from deep cuts
........................................................................................................................................... 182
2010/10/19 CASE: Looking ahead to tomorrow’s CSR........................................................ 183
80 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
2010/10/19 Nature: UK science funds in limbo.................................................................. 185
2010/10/19 Exquisite Life: HEPI’s devastating critique makes Browne look shallow ......... 187
2010/10/19 Guardian CiF: Science funding: Back the boffins............................................. 192
2010/10/19 The Great Beyond: ERC awards €580 million to novice researchers ............... 193

81 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/12 CASE: A MIXED PROGNOSIS FOR
MEDICAL RESEARCH
By GUEST BLOGGER

Dr Harriet Teare is Policy Researcher at Cancer Research UK

The build-up to the Government’s Spending Review on 20 October has generated huge speculation. How
will the Government choose to distribute its funds? What will be protected? And who and what will take
the biggest hit?

For medical research, much remains to be seen.

NHS budgets will be protected. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) – the NHS’s research arm,
which provides a vital link between researchers and patients – is included within this and should therefore
be relatively safe.

But the science budget in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills still hangs in the balance.

In recent weeks we’ve seen unprecedented collaboration in the research community, across disciplines
and geographical boundaries, to fight to protect the science budget. The case made for medical research is
that it’s good for health, great for furthering scientific knowledge, and hugely valuable for the strength of
the economy. Research leads to better ways to treat and prevent ill health – and a healthy workforce is a
more productive one. Discovering new drugs and treatments, improving existing techniques, and
encouraging investment from industry and charities, all drive growth in our economy.

In fact, every pound that the government spends on medical research generates much more than a pound
of additional private sector funding, and together they create increased wealth for the UK. Recent
indications suggest that the message is getting through. Delegates at the Conservative party conference
heard several times of David Willetts’ support for science. Similarly, in his conference speech, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, alluded to support for medical research to stimulate
economic recovery.

But with the Spending Review looming ever closer, there is still everything to play for.

Government funding for science

Funding for research is complex and the stability on which we rely is largely thanks to the delicate balance
of the relationships between Government and other funders across the UK. Public funding for science is
largely supplied through two mechanisms.

Firstly, Research Councils give grants to individual researchers to carry out particular projects.

Secondly, funding supplied to universities through QR (quality related) grants from funding councils such as
the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), provide money for things like building costs,
permanent salaries, and teaching. HEFCE judge which universities are doing the highest quality research,
and fund them based on this track record.

Such funding provides a supportive environment for research. This money plants the seed for further
investment from charities and industry. It encourages these different partners to work together. And the
system works well because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

82 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
University funding is a hot topic of conversation, especially in light of speculation about the
impending Browne Review. This is rumoured to be set to abolish the cap on tuition fees.

The inextricable link between research and teaching in universities suggests that funding decisions on one
would greatly affect the other. With two distinct avenues for change on the horizon, the next few months
for universities could be very tough indeed.

Cancer Research UK is funded entirely by donations from the general public. But we have a strong interest
in the strength of UK universities, in which we invested £168 million in 2008/09, in addition to the research
conducted in our own institutes.

Charitable giving and philanthropy lie at the heart of the Government’s ‘Big Society’. Charity and industry
funding for research and the way this is supported by Government funding is a good example of how we
can work together to the benefit of the UK economy.

The importance of the ring-fence

One factor of public funding which has greatly assisted the strength of the research base is the science
budget ring-fence, which ensures that money set aside for science is not diverted to other areas within BIS.
The ring fence provides stability, predictability and security, which are all necessary to build a strong
research base. A long-term funding strategy, protected from short-term political pressures, stabilises the
UK research environment and gives UK and international funding partners the confidence to invest.

It takes an average of 17 years for a newly-funded research project to start benefiting patients. This is why
it is so important that the current level of funding, coupled with the long term commitment to maintain it,
is protected as much as possible. The alternative is to see years of investment fall by the wayside and the
health and prosperity of the UK diminish. While on the surface, medical research may appear to weather
the impending storm, spending decisions on 20 October will affect the entire research base and
fundamentally influence our ability to carry out high quality medical research.

2010/10/12 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: A

SLEEPING BEAST AWAKES ON THE SCIENCE IS
VITAL RALLY

Jenny Rohn, whose call to arms culminated in the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury on Saturday,
describes how she watched in awe as scientists took to the streets

Science is Vital rally in Whitehall on Saturday. Video: The Newton Channel Link to this video

83 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Last Saturday, several thousand scientists and their supporters massed in front of the Treasury building in
Westminster to speak out against proposed funding cuts for scientific research. Standing on the stage for
my opening speech, I surveyed the sea of protestors in a state of awe.

It was past the starting time of 2pm, but people were still streaming into King Charles Street from both
ends of the road. I could see people of all descriptions: famous scientists, young students, families with
small children. Many people sported white coats and held up placards or colourful accessories: a foam
model of Jupiter; a buckyball on a stick; the international symbol for toxic irritants with a photo of Vince
Cable superimposed within the yellow triangle. The mood was well-behaved and upbeat, but the opening
cheer echoed with a mighty roar, driving home just how formidable people can be when many act as one.

It had been only a month since I wrote a blog post proposing that scientists take to the streets – four short
weeks from a crazy idea to its culmination. Along the way I received a whirlwind education in politics and
grassroots organisation. My colleagues and I might be good at splicing genes or peering into the depths of
the universe, but how many scientists does it take to assemble 300 placards in four hours while being
faintly high on spray glue? (Answer: about a dozen.) These lessons and others occurred in a haze of
distracted days and late nights, and go some way toward explaining the complaint that more scientists
don't engage in policy activism: if they did, at least on this scale, research would grind to a halt.

The big day finally arrived. Over the next two hours, speakers entertained the crowd in a line-up aimed at
stimulating both hearts and minds. Colin Blakemore, Oxford neurobiologist and former head of the
Medical Research Council, and Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, made
the detailed case for the importance of research investment to maintain economic growth. Bad Science
columnist and medicBen Goldacre spoke about the perils of a cuts-fuelled brain drain, and Simon Denegri,
chief exec of the Association of Medical Research Charities, explained how public funding is crucial for
supporting its mission. Sex educator Petra Boynton described why cutting basic research would imperil
collaborations with social scientists working in the developing world. Paul Noon, general secretary of
Prospect, spoke on behalf research trade unions, while Michael Brooks explained why he set up a political
party devoted to science.

On a more personal note, cancer survivor Claire Daniels and former Alzheimer carer Vivienne Hill gave
moving personal takes on the importance of research.

But it wasn't all sober and serious. Materials scientist and broadcaster Mark Miodownik of King's College
London spoke about the more inspirational aspects of science as a cultural endeavour, and stand-up
science comics Timandra Harkness and Dean Burnett easily scored laughs. But Evan Harris, former MP and
tireless champion for evidence-based policy, arguably stole the show with his singing and chanting stints –
which are rapidly becoming YouTube classics. Crowd-sourced videos and images of all the speakers and
antics have been flooding in.

Now that we on the Science is Vital team have just about managed to catch up on our sleep, it's a good
time for reflection. We achieved excellent media coverage, and our central message – that cutting science
funding will harm, not help, the economy – seems to have been driven home. We know that our work is
not yet finished: we have a parliamentary lobbytoday, and still need to urge people to sign our
petition (the deadline passes at 13.30 BST on Wednesday) and write to their MPs.

20 October will be the moment of truth, however. When the comprehensive spending review is
announced, we will finally find out whether our efforts made a difference. But there is one thing, at least,
about which we can already be certain: scientists in the UK will no longer take things lying down. The
slumbering beast truly has awakened.

84 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/12 EXQUISITE LIFE: WHAT ARE
CHANCES OF A "PROGRESSIVE BROWNE" DEAL ON
STUDENT FEES BEING IMPLEMENTED?
Well, thanks to the Today programme this morning we see that even John Browne doesn’t know what the
government’s response to his report will be.

Does that mean, as I argued at Conservative Home on Sunday, that it’s a genuine crisis for the
coalition? Michael White today in the Guardian is among those who think so.

Or does it mean, as Conservative Home’s editor Tim Montgomerie argued in a riposte later in the day, that
this is business as usual for the coalition, that tough choices will have to be made to reach a compromise?
That’s also what David Cameron told reporters yesterday.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. What’s clear from the whirl of confusion around the
release of the report is that it has become wrapped in high, intensely obscure backroom politics. Are any
big blocks of policy effectively in place or is it all still to play for? The sense that the field may still be more
open than ministers would like has been accentuated by two think tanks throwing their own un-Browne-
like proposals for reform into the ring yesterday. Both Policy Exchange and the Social Market
Foundation plainly think there's still time and scope to capture the debate.

All eyes will be on Vince Cable this afternoon when he speaks to the House of Commons. He will want to
create a sense of inevitability to counteract the attempts of the National Union of Students to destabilise
the party leadership. But how far will he feel able to go?

A holding statement that the government will look at Browne with a view to making it more progressive

Suggestions of ways the government is interested in revising Browne, eg with higher interest rates for rich
graduates

A definitive commitment to vote for the 6k soft fees cap from the Lib Dems, thus becoming the moment
when Clegg repudiates his pre-election pledges on fees.

The two big political things that could knock the move towards “Progressive Brown” off course are Lib Dem
bloodletting or a right-wing backlash over the squeezed middle, like the one that caused Cameron's
wobble last week over child benefit. But both possibilities seem muted this morning.

The Lib Dem leadership has succeeded, at least temporarily, in shutting down open debate by serious
figures within the party on the subject.

And Cameron need not be too worried by the papers yesterday and today. The Telegraph has sent mixed
messages - voicing both a willingness to be reasonable and the demand that the middle not be squeezed
(which is the essence of Browne). The Mail today has buried the story, and even the cartoon is rueful
rather than cutting. Murdoch’s Sun and Times are not on the warpath. The Guardian can be ignored.

One thing is certain from the arithmetic in the Commons. If Clegg leads his party past the Aye tellers, it
doesn’t matter if there’s a backbench rebellion, the government will carry the day. If I was the Russell
Group, right now I'd be feeling pretty content.

85 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Mac's cartoon in the Daily Mail today

'Look, Simon. Mummy and Daddy have brought you a

hoodie - why not bunk off school and join a nice gang

of yobs?'

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/10/12 EXQUISITE LIFE: WHY DAVID

CAMERON MAY HAVE TO NUKE THE LIB DEMS ON
STUDENT FEES
At the Lib Dem conference last month, Simon Hughes told my colleague Brian Owens that Nick Clegg had
agreed to delay any response to Browne until the party had had a chance to assess and discuss the issues.
This appears to be what is indeed transpiring.

Doorstepped by the BBC this morning, Vince Cable outlined what he will tell the House of Commons later.

“We will not be giving a definitive response," he said. "I’ll just be giving a preliminary response from
government.”

Meanwhile, Hughes has issued a statement as deputy leader.

“We all have a duty to read and consider fully Lord Browne’s proposals and the Government's response,”
he writes. “Today will not be the last word on policy for funding higher education in England. All MPs
should now engage constructively in questions, answers and debate in Parliament. We must also listen to
the considered responses of our constituents and the wider public before we come to take our final
personal and collective decisions on the best way forward.”

So the situation seems to be that Clegg and Cable have got an outline of a potential deal with Cameron and
Willetts that they are now going to try and sell to the party.

86 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Cable told the BBC, “We think the report is broadly on the right lines.” And asked about the parties election
pledges explained, “We’ve inherited an appalling financial situation... the kind of things we’d like to do in
an ideal world we’re just not able to do.”

That is acceptable language for Conservatives.

But Hughes wrote, “It is important that government policy on higher education funding moves this country
on from the present unfair tuition fee system. Parliament should only support a progressive system which
takes into account future earnings and makes sure that those who benefit most financially from a
university education contribute the most.”

That kind of language will make many Conservatives nervous, and the difference with Cable just reflects
the fact that much of the party disagrees with the position Clegg and Cable have taken.

So the Conservatives will now be waiting while the Lib Dems go through their internal discussions. The key
issue here is not whether there’s a backbench rebellion in the end. There almost certainly will be a
rebellion against any policy acceptable to Conservatives. The key issue is whether Clegg leads his MPs in
voting Aye or in abstaining.

If Clegg leads them past the Aye tellers, then any rebellion will need to get up into the 40s to threaten the
government with defeat. Given that more than 20 of the Lib Dems’ 57 MPs are on the government payroll
and would lose their position by voting against a three line whip, that seems unlikely. But if Clegg leads an
abstention, that number halves to a more realistic 20 or so MPs voting against the government.

The process by which the Lib Dems will come to this decision - and the time it will take - is obscure, but the
party structures are famously supposed to hold more control over the leadership than in the Conservative
and Labour parties. Hence the views of the youth wing (strongly anti) and other grassroots members are
likely to press home in a way that even Westminster experts are unfamiliar with. Clegg is plainly pushing
for an Aye position, but there’s no guarantee he’ll get it.

If the decision is for abstention, then we enter the halls of brinkmanship. And if the Lib Dem rebellion
genuinely threatens the legislation, then David Cameron has a nuclear option. From a Conservative point of
view, a rebellion that defeats the government on this would be a grave violation of the Coalition
Agreement, which only gives Lib Dems the right to abstain. So in those circumstances, he can say the Lib
Dems have reneged on the deal, broken the Coalition and call an early election.

The threat of this is a terrifying scenario for Lib Dems, currently struggling in the polls. Would the turkeys
vote for Christmas? Just as mysterious is the question of whether it is really something Cameron would
want to do. Even if he calculated that he could win an outright majority for the Conservatives, would he
actually prefer that to the Coalition? Would he really prefer now to deal with the Conservative Right every
day or Clegg and co?

The opt out on fees given to the Lib Dems in the Coalition Agreement effectively deferred the brokering of
a deal on the topic. Now that brokering has to be done, and it may provide us with a searing examination
of the soul of the Coalition.

Meanwhile, the CSR next week will cut university teaching budgets for 2012 in a way that assumes a
certain level of fee income, even though there is as yet no agreement on the new fees regime. In the worst
case scenario for universities, the haggling stretches out from weeks into months forcing them to make
concrete decision on hiring or firing staff on the basis of guesses as to the level of future income from both
government and students.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

87 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Comments
Postscript 18 October 2010
Having outlined the theory of a potential fault line within the Lib Dems, this article left open the question of
how things stood on the ground. In particular, where the Lib Dem factions stood on the question of MPs being
whipped to vote Aye or abstain.
I made a mental note to phone some Lib Dems, but no need. Newsnight helpfully answered this question on
Thursday night. Michael Crick went and talked to the Cleggerons. And they got Simon Hughes into the studio,
from whom Jeremy Paxman extracted a (different) position.
With the fault line theory confirmed with evidence, I then extended my analysis [http://bit.ly/cjJch9].
I can't say why Newsnight decided so helpfully to ask so thoroughly the questions I was so interested in. But I
can point out that this blog entry here was selected on the Thursday as the number one story in the BBC's
Newsnight Daily web newspaper [http://bit.ly/907Eu7 ]...
What, I wonder, would Andrew Marr have to say about that?!
Posted by: William Cullerne Bown

2010/10/13 EXQUISITE LIFE: VINCE CABLE

WOBBLES ON UNLIMITED TUITION FEES
Is the government going to lift the cap on tuition fees or not? Browne’s recommendation is a clear yes. But
in his statement to the House of Commons yesterday, Vince Cable wobbled precariously close to the edge
of retaining a cap on fees.

The Business Secretary’s language to MPs was quite mysterious. He said:

“The question, then, is how much the graduate contributions for tuition should be. We are considering a
level of £7,000. Many universities and colleges may well decide to charge less than that, since there is
clearly scope for greater efficiency and innovation in the way universities operate. Two year ordinary
degrees are one approach. Exceptionally, Lord Browne suggests there should be circumstances under
which universities can price their courses above this point. But, he suggests, this would be conditional on
demonstrating that funds would be invested in securing a good social mix with fair access for students with
less privileged backgrounds, and in raising the quality of teaching and learning. We will consider this
carefully.”

What does "a level of £7,000" mean? It hints at a cap of £7,000 - much too low for the likes of the Russell
Group, but it doesn’t commit to it. So it’s all up for grabs. We will all now have to wait while Simon Hughes
orchestrates the Lib Dems internal debate.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/10/13 THE GREAT BEYOND: SCIENTISTS

PUSH NUKE CUTS
For the better part of the autumn, British scientists have been loudly protesting cuts that are expected
next week in the government’s four-year budget. But while the research community has been eager
to hold placards and sing songs in defence of science, few have been willing to say what should be cut
instead.

Until today. A letter signed by 36 researchers, including Nobel-prize-winner Harry Kroto, and published
in the Guardian, calls for the money for science to come from defence research, which currently makes up
88 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
about a quarter of the UK's £8 billion research budget. In particular, the letter calls for cuts to the
Aldermaston Weapons Establishment (AWE), the UK's sole nuclear weapons laboratory.

It’s true that AWE has enjoyed some serious infrastructure investment in recent years, including a brand
new £183-million laser facility that I visited this spring. But there are hints that even the scientists in charge
of the UK’s nuclear deterrent aren’t being spared the budget axe. According to a recent story in
the Financial Times, AWE is looking to collaborate with weapon's scientists in France in order to save
money.

Whether you agree with the letter or not, it’s impressive that Kroto and colleagues were bold enough to
suggest where the cuts to save science should actually come from.

Credit: MoD

2010/10/13 THE GREAT BEYOND: STUDENT

FEES WON'T SOLVE SCIENCE TEACHING FUNDING
GAP
An influential government-commissioned report yesterday recommended that UK universities be allowed
to charge students higher fees. (Guardian, Telegraph,BBC News)

The extra income will go some way to help cash strapped universities. But increased government spending
is still needed to plug a funding gap in the teaching of science and engineering courses, science
campaigners have warned.

John Browne, former chief executive of BP, recommended today that the current £3,290 cap on student
fees be removed allowing universities to charge what they like. The proposals come in Browne’s long
awaited review of student finance.

The aim of increasing student fees is to generate more income for universities and allow them freedom to
manage their coffers, reducing their reliance on government funding.

Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering says he is concerned about the possible
impact that increasing fees could have on science and technology subjects.

A reduction in funding for science teaching in 2004 lead to the closure of a number of chemistry and
physics departments, including Kings College London.

“The key question is whether universities will actually get any more money to teach their currently under-
funded science and engineering courses,” Khan says in a statement.

“Increased student fees must not just offset a reduced government subsidy – we need funding for these
subjects to actually rise,” he says.

“We’re now in the vulnerable situation where a single department is responsible for funding universities as
well as overseeing the science and research budget. We cannot see money simply being transferred from
research into teaching to make up any shortfall – it underlines why we need a ring-fence for the science
budget,” he adds.

Many research intensive universities welcomed Browne’s review.

89 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of universities, which includes the universities of
Cambridge, Oxford and Manchester, said, “These recommendations could make or break our world-class
universities. That’s because, bluntly, our leading institutions will not be able to compete with generously-
funded universities in other countries if they are not able to secure extra funding.”

Responding to the report, Vince Cable, the business secretary, said the government endorses the “main
thrust of the report” adding Browne’s proposals are “on the right lines”.

Further details of the government’s plans for university funding will be set out in next week’s
comprehensive spending review, due on 20 October.

2010/10/13 IN VERBA: SCIENCE AND

LEARNING IN PARLIAMENT
By Jessica Bland

FROM TESSA GARDNER IN THE SCIENCE POLICY CENTRE

Last Thursday evening I attended the re-launch of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Scientific Research
in Learning and Education. Standing in front of the garish mustard and khaki colours of the portcullis-
themed wallpaper in the Peer’s Dining Room and celebrating the resurrection of the Group, I was there to
consider how the growing body of scientific knowledge on learning and development could be effectively
incorporated into evidence-informed education policy.

Amongst the attendees were key figures James Arbuthnot MP and former director of inspection at Ofsted,
Sir Jim Rose. Sir Rose gave a short talk highlighting the need to bust numerous ‘neuromyths’ – a phrase he
attributed to Usha Goswami, member of the Working Group for the Royal Society’s Brain Waves
project on Neuroscience, Education, and Lifelong Learning . Also in attendance was Baroness Estelle
Morris, former Education Secretary and chair of last month’s Royal Society meeting on “Education: what’s
the brain got to do with it?”, a series of roundtable discussions with the dialogue logged live via Twitter.
(For more information, please read our Neuroscience twitter summary.)

The re-launch event was hosted by Baroness Susan Greenfield on behalf of the Centre for British Teachers
(CfBT) Education Trust. A Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Oxford University, Baroness Greenfield
has been awarded a CBE and the Royal Society’s Faraday Prize. Baroness Greenfield alluded to scientific
research in learning and education as a 21st Century potential zeitgeist, equivalent in importance to
climate change. Before letting us discuss amongst ourselves the gravity of this possibility, she cited Barack
Obama’s pertinent quote: “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s
inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient”.

The overwhelming message from the re-launch event was that science is relevant to such a vast range of
public issues that scientists should be taking on the responsibility of being at the heart of society. This
outlook echoes the sentiments felt by many across the neuroscience community, with the Royal Society’s
Brain Waves project aiming to explore the implications of developments in neuroscience for a number of
areas of concern to society, including education, law, security, and health. Module 1 of the project, which
deals with a broad assessment of neuroscience and its relevance to areas of public policy, is due to be
launched in December 2010.

90 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/13 RCUK: UK RESEARCH IS KEY TO
BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
A new report released today (13 October) by Research Councils UK (RCUK) presents the case for public
funding of UK research and why it is so vital for our future prosperity. “Research for our Future: UK
business success through public investment in research” includes input from leading decision-makers from
business and industry in the UK and elsewhere, and examines why they choose to work in partnership with
British researchers.

The evidence is overwhelming in support of the view that the quality of the UK base attracts business and
industry to conduct R&D in partnership with researchers and that the knowledge and ideas generated by
this research are key drivers of business productivity and economic growth.

Author of the report Romesh Vaitilingam said: “The UK research base is proven to be one of the best in the
world and this reputation for quality has had a direct impact on the economic prosperity and social
wellbeing of the UK. However, the UK cannot afford to be complacent as more and more countries see the
benefits and return on investment in research, seeking to stimulate their own economies and world
research standings.”

Some of the key findings of the report include:

 Continued public investment in research is essential for the success of UK business and industry.
 The greatest long-term productivity advances come through breakthroughs in basic knowledge.
 Publicly funded research raises the productivity of R&D in the private sector.
 Research institutions produce highly trained graduates which are an essential resource for UK
companies and foreign companies investing in the UK.
 The high quality of UK research makes the country attractive for inward investment by international
business and industry through collaborations.

RCUK Impact Champion, Professor Dave Delpy said: “The UK has long been a nation that leads research
innovation and this is the key competitive advantage we must preserve. It is vital that we continue to
produce the best in academic research that has an impact on us all and attracts the best business and
industry from around the world to the UK.”

A full copy of the report is available from RCUK here

A new film to accompany the report featuring interviews with Romesh Vaitilingam, Professor Dave Delpy
and leading UK researchers is now available to view here

2010/10/13 EXQUISITE LIFE: DAVID WILLETTS’

STRAIGHT TALK ON INNOVATION
Despite being highly pressed for time yesterday due to the release of the Browne Review, David Willetts,
Minister of State for Universities and Science, addressed delegates of Innovate 10 on innovation and the
future role of the Technology Strategy Board, giving clear answers on key issues for universities.
Higher Education Innovation Fund

91 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Although the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), allocated by Hefce, is a relatively small pot of
money (total of £150m in 2010/11), many universities rely on it to provide business support, technology
transfer support and other innovation operations like science parks and entrepreneurship training for
students and academics. HEIF is one of the many funding streams under threat from impending funding
cuts and universities have voiced their concerns that cutting this money could have serious consequences
to the ability of universities to be innovative and limit their economic return.

When asked directly about the future of HEIF, Willetts responded positively saying he was a “great fan of
HEIF.” He suggested that, in some cases, HEIF could be used more strategically by universities, and there
may be a requirement in the future to pool resources for smaller organisations. Whether HEIF will remain
as a separate funding stream or be incorporated into larger Hefce allocations remains to be seen but
Willetts “hopes, in some version, it can carry on”. The outlook seems positive.
The Fraunhofer Model

It did not take long until the Hauser and Dyson reports were cited as ways forward on innovation. Both of
these reports suggest the creation of an elite network of technology centres, modelled on the German
Fraunhofer Centres, to help bridge the gap between research and development. However, Willetts noted
that it was not possible to “just lift the German model” and that the TSB have been tasked with developing
this concept into an action plan. Although funding for the centres has not yet been confirmed, Willetts
seems keen on making them a reality. One model currently being considered by the TSB is new regional
centres or hubs that reach out to other local centres of excellence.
Role of the Technology Strategy Board and regional funding

It was clear from Willetts’ speech that he places the TSB at the centre of future developments in
innovation, both for universities and business. He said that the technology, business and research
responsibilities of the RDAs will transfer to the TSB from next year. The TSB will also “be at the centre of
innovation strategy in the UK” and be core to the coalition’s new innovation strategy due in Spring 2011.
The next priority area: Stratified Medicine

In his speech, Willetts also announced the TSB’s next long term programme in the area of ‘stratified
medicine’—a move towards developing more medicines targeted at particular diseases and personalised
medicine. ‘Picking winners’ is not often a popular strategy but Willetts said he was not embarrassed about
picking particular sectors to prioritise.

The TSB will be launching three calls in this area in January 2011. With a budget of £11m, the new
Stratified Medicine programme will be funding the areas of tumour profiling, biomarkers and new
biomedical business models. The TSB have a number of collaborators on this programme including the
Research Councils, Cancer Research UK and a number of industry partners.

In his speech at Innovation 10, Willetts was remarkably straight up about the future of innovation in the
UK. It seems that innovation, and the funding streams attached to it, may come off relatively unscathed
during these times of budget cuts. However, there is a lot of pressure on the TSB, a fairly new organisation,
to deliver.

92 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/13 BBC SCIENCE NEWS: SCIENCE
CUTS 'RISK ECONOMIC HARM'

Science advocates went on to the streets of London at the

weekend to protest at probable cuts

Cuts in UK government spending on research and development (R&D) are likely to do immense damage to
the UK economy, a new report claims.

The document has been produced for Research Councils UK (RCUK), the body that manages public research
funds.

It warns that a cut of £1bn in the amount of money it distributes for scientific research would lead to a fall
in GDP of £10bn.

The government says it recognises the importance of science to the economy.

All the evidence suggests that public expenditure on research actually encourages the
private sector to spend more and increases the productivity of private sector spending”

Romesh VaitilingamRCUK report author

However, it has consistently stated that research - just as with every other area of expenditure - has to
stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

The coalition will announce the details of its Comprehensive Spending Review next week.

All government departments, including Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which controls most of the
nation's research budget, have been told to prepare for cuts of 25%, and perhaps more, as the coalition
tries to get to grips with the nation's finances.

The RCUK report argues that the quality of the UK science base has been instrumental in attracting
business and industry to conduct R&D in partnership with public sector researchers, and the fruits of that
union are important drivers of business productivity and economic growth.

It warns that large cuts in public funding now would damage this success story.

In addition, the report says that a reduction in governmental R&D would actually have a double-whammy
effect by also depressing private R&D activity.

"All the evidence suggests that public expenditure on research actually encourages the private sector to
spend more and increases the productivity of private sector spending," said Romesh Vaitilingam, the
report's author.

93 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
"This is not just special pleading; there are some long-term issues here. This is about the benefits which
accrue to the whole of society, not just the research sector," he told BBC News.

The matter of science funding has become a hot topic in recent days, and the debate was amplified by the
announcement last week that the excellence of UK research had been honoured with two Nobel Prizes.

At the weekend, hundreds of scientists gathered outside the Treasury in central London to protest against
the expected cuts.

2010/10/13 EXQUISITE LIFE: BEWARE

POLITICAL COMPROMISES ON BROWNE
John Browne’s panel has come up with an insightful and shrewd report. It builds on the political settlement
that introduced graduate-payment tuition fees in 2006. It was to be expected that Browne would
recommend that those fees should rise, and he has come up with some well crafted safeguards against
higher fees being a deterrent to students from less well off backgrounds, and to protect against
universities over-charging.

In a different political and economic climate, this approach could have paved the way to a wholly new
approach to the funding of the UK’s universities, sweeping aside the existing tight government control over
student numbers and fees and setting universities free at last to compete globally.

But in the present climate, the report fulfils a different function. Its entire approach is based on what
Browne believes will emerge from next week’s comprehensive spending review announcement. We can
see already that BIS has failed to convince the Treasury of the economic value of a thriving higher
education sector warranting tax-borne investment. Indeed, it looks likely that BIS will suffer deeper cuts
than other departments, coming on top of the £1 billion that has already been taken out of higher
education. The impact on university teaching budgets will be dramatic. Browne assumes – no doubt on
Treasury advice – that all Government teaching grant is to be withdrawn, except for some exceptional high
cost and high priority courses. Out of a current annual budget of £3.7 billion, only £700 million will remain.
In a politically sane world, this CSR announcement would have come first. As it is, Browne has been forced
to abandon any prospect of an orderly implementation plan. His review has been turned by the CSR into an
emergency funding measure.

The Browne model is one in which private investment is substituted for public. But the £3 billion is not an
immediate savings to the Treasury. Browne would transform the present Government grant to universities
into a voucher system under student control. Universities are to be free to take as many students as they
wish, with student-consumer sovereignty determining the universities to which the resources will go.
Hence the level of public investment actually remains undiminished for the next several years, but it
changes character from grant to loan. That allows for different accounting treatment, and hence a declared
savings, notwithstanding the proposed 30 year repayment period.

Although Browne offers a market solution, the freedoms that might be expected to flow from this are
highly compromised. The headline message is that the cap on fees is to be lifted. The reality is that this is
will not significantly advantage leading universities, because any fee over £6,000 – which is less than what
universities receive under the present combination of fee and grant – is to be subject to a tax rate for each
£1,000 above £6,000, starting at 40% for a £7,000 fee and rising to 75% at a £12,000 fee. The purpose is to
cover the assumed higher risks of loan default, but it is also clearly intended to moderate fees ambitions
overall, and ensure that all opportunities are taken to drive through efficiencies. But it also acts as a

94 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
disincentive to invest in the improvements to facilities and staffing support for an excellent student
experience that globally competitive universities simply must make. It may even operate as a perverse
incentive for some universities to concentrate on increasing international student numbers at the expense
of places for UK undergraduates. Moreover, universities choosing to charge higher fees are to be subjected
to a more intrusive inspection regime, which suggests limited confidence in market forces as the driver of
excellence.

There is recognition of the need for additional tax-borne support for science and clinical subjects, but this
is to be on a discretionary basis through a new Higher Education Council. In the absence of any assurances
as to quantum, teaching in STEM subjects is seriously at risk. Ministers freely anticipate the closure of
universities under the new regime; they must also be contemplating the closure of scientific departments
within otherwise successful universities.

Most ominously, there has been no Browne review to help the Government and universities cope with the
consequences of the anticipated cuts next week in the science budget. It is from this quarter that the
greatest threat comes to the financial sustainability, not only of the big research intensive universities but
also those in the middle range which expect also to be under greatest pressure for teaching.

We are not exactly in an era of cool political analysis and consensus. Labour and Conservatives are
currently adopting an approach set at 180 degrees from what they espoused in the debates in 2004. The
Liberal Democrats find themselves in an impossible position. Their MPs are pledged on the one hand to
vote against an increase in tuition fees; and committed on the other hand – they are after all in
Government – to voting in the funding cuts that generate the need for fees. Nobody can now seriously
believe that a graduate tax offers any solution – and certainly not Alan Johnson, new Shadow Chancellor
and in an earlier life the architect of the present tuition fee model.

This suggests that various political compromises may yet have to be offered to steer legislation through –
Vince Cable has already hinted that a fees cap may be re-imposed – which are likely to undermine the
package offered by Browne and lead to a seriously adverse outcome for all those with a genuine stake in
the future of our universities.

Posted by Malcolm Grant

2010/10/13 GUARDIAN CIF: CUT MILITARY

R&D, NOT SCIENCE FUNDING
Science spending cuts should come mainly from the MoD's R&D budget, not research into health and
environmental problems

Michael Atiyah and others

95 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 The government continues to fund
research at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. Photograph: Martin Godwin

As senior scientists and engineers, we are deeply concerned that while the government is threatening
to cut public funding for research and development as a whole, it appears to be committed to maintaining
high levels of military-related R&D. Of particular concern is the fact that world-class research into health
and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the
multibillion pound research programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston.

Official statistics indicate that the total public spending on R&D is currently about £8bn. Of this, the
Ministry of Defence spends over £2bn, more than 25% of the total. Much of this funding is used to support
defence industry projects at a time when the industry is reaping bumper profits thanks to a massive
increase in global military expenditure over the last decade. Our view is that current MoD R&D funding is
not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes that are of minimal benefit or
counterproductive to the UK's security. For example, funds for the redevelopment of the AWE's research
facilities "to ensure that the existing warhead can be maintained for as long as necessary, and to enable
the development of a successor warhead should one be required" (quoting from the AWE's mission
statement) will, we firmly believe, undermine progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.

Our view is that the UK's nuclear warheads should be taken off deployment and placed in secure land-
based storage, and that the successor to theTrident system should be scrapped. The facilities at the AWE
should be directed solely to monitoring and verification of arms control and disarmament agreements.

Overall, therefore, we believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from
cuts to the MoD's R&D.

However, there are some areas of security-related R&D that should be expanded, including those which
support monitoring of arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution, and tackling the roots of
conflict and insecurity.

The overarching threats to international security arise from rising fuel and resource costs, the impacts of
climate change and other environmental problems, and the widening gap between rich and poor. Nuclear
weapons are of no help in dealing with these problems – indeed, they are likely to make matters far worse.
On the other hand, a major shift of military R&D to civilian programmes of work will – if targeted carefully
– help to tackle these international problems, improving the UK's security and also leading to greater job
creation and a faster emergence from the current recession. As an example of the current imbalance in
resources, we note that the current MoD R&D budget is more than 20 times larger than public funding for
R&D on renewable energy.

96 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
We therefore urge ministers to shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to
tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security.

Signed:

Sir Michael Atiyah, Professor (Honorary) of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh

Keith Barnham, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Roy Butterfield, Professor (Emeritus) of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton

David Caplin, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Roland Clift, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Technology, University of Surrey

Anne-Christine Davis, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge

David Elliott, Professor (Emeritus) of Technology Policy, The Open University

Christopher French, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

Leon Freris, Professor (Visiting) of Renewable Energy Systems, Loughborough University

Jonathan Harwood, Professor (Emeritus) of History of Science & Technology, University of Manchester

Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds

Robert Hinde, Professor (Emeritus) of Zoology, University of Cambridge

David Infield, Professor of Renewable Energy Technologies, University of Strathclyde

Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey

Tom Kibble, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Sir Harold Kroto, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of Sussex; Professor of Chemistry, Florida
State University; Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1996)

Matthew Leach, Professor of Energy and Environmental Systems

Amyan Macfadyen, Professor (Emeritus) of Ecology and Environmental Science, University of Ulster

Aubrey Manning, Professor (Emeritus) of Natural History, University of Edinburgh

Stephen Morse, Professor of Systems Analysis for Sustainability

Eike Nagel, Professor of Clinical Cardiovascular Imaging, King's College London

Jenny Nelson, Professor of Physics, Imperial College London

John F Nye, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, University of Bristol

Lawrence Paulson, Professor of Computational Logic, University of Cambridge

Malcolm Povey, Professor of Food Physics, University of Leeds

William Powrie, Professor of Geotechnical Engineering

Norman Sheppard, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of East Anglia

97 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
John Sloboda, Professor (Emeritus) of Psychology, Keele University

Peter F Smith, Professor of Sustainable Energy, University of Nottingham

Tim Valentine, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

F J Vine, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia

Alex Warleigh-Lack, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Brunel University

David Webb, Professor of Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University

John Whitelegg, Professor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, Liverpool John Moores University; Professor
(Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, York University

Tom Woolley, Professor of Architecture, Queens University Belfast (retired)

Peter Young, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Systems, Lancaster University

2010/10/13 GUARDIAN SCIENCE NEWS:

MILITARY RESEARCH SHOULD BEAR BRUNT OF
SCIENCE CUTS, SAY LEADING SCIENTISTS
Senior academics say science cuts should focus on military research projects, including finding a
replacement for Trident

Ian Sample, science correspondent

Missile tubes on a Trident nuclear submarine. The scientists want all

Britain's nuclear weapons placed in secure storage. Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Guardian

Military research projects, including plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, must bear the
brunt of science funding cuts if Britain is to stay at the forefront of scientific research, academics have told
the prime minister.

Thirty-six scientists and engineers, including seven Royal Society fellows and one Nobel laureate, have
today written to David Cameron raising concerns over the future of British science if civilian research is cut
while defence research is spared.

The government spends £8bn on scientific research, of which more than £2bn is earmarked for Ministry of
Defence projects at facilities such as theAtomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. The nuclear
weapons lab will play a central role in developing a successor to Trident if ministers decide to go ahead
with a replacement.

98 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
"Of particular concern is the fact that world class research into health and global environmental problems
is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multi-billion pound research programme at
the Atomic Weapons Establishment," the authors write in the letter, which is published today in the
Guardian.

"Our view is that current MoD funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on
programmes which are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK's security," the letter adds. The
authors call for Britain's nuclear warheads to be placed in secure storage and the successor to Trident
scrapped to free up funds for civilian science research.

The letter, signed by Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in chemical and biological weapons at Leeds
University, Sir Harry Kroto, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1996, and the mathematician Sir
Michael Atiyah, continues: "We believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly
come from cuts to the Ministry of Defence's research and development."

The letter comes a week after the prime minister told the Conservative party conference in Birmingham
that he would take "no risks with British security" and stressed his commitment to renewing the Trident
nuclear missile system. In the letter, the scientists urge ministers to "shift their priorities so that science
and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security."

The scientists concede a need for extra funding on some defence-related issues, including research into
ways of monitoring arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution and strategies for "tackling
the roots of conflict and insecurity".

Sir Michael, a former president of the Royal Society, said: "This isn't scientists being self-interested and
telling the government not to give money to someone else because they want it for themselves. We
strongly believe that current use of government money, that is strongly backing military research, is
misguided. This is not the right way to spend government money regardless of the economic situation."

On Saturday, 2,000 scientists and their supporters demonstrated outside the Treasury against funding cuts
that are expected to reach £1bn.

Professor Hay said funding for military projects has benefited from the powerful defence lobby in Britain,
but called on ministers to reconsider how public funds are spent on science.

"We're not calling for a slash in defence funding, but we do need to get the proportions right. There's been
a disproportionate emphasis on military research and development and it is clear why with Britain's
armaments industry," Hay told the Guardian. "I seriously question the need for Trident and the need for a
nuclear deterrent generally. The question really is whether the country can afford it when a lot of people
are going to be out of work."

He added: "It takes a long time to train researchers and I fear that the cuts that are being mooted will so
wreck our science base that it will take such a long time to recover. In Germany and the US they are
investing hugely in science. They see research as the seed corn for future prosperity in every sense,
whether it's combating global warming or developing new medicines."

Stuart Parkinson at Scientists for Global Responsibility, a group that promotes ethical science, design and
technology that was involved in organising the letter, said: "There are far better ways in which both the
money and science skills can be used to reduce threats in terms of improving our energy and food security
and tackling global issues such as poverty and environmental problems, which can drive instability and
conflict."

99 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/13 EXQUISITE LIFE: THE PAPERS ON
BROWNE
All of the major newspapers have responded to the Browne review of university finance on their editorial
pages today. Most were generally in favour of Browne’s plans—with the notable exception of The Daily
Mail. Here’s a round-up of what they said:
The Guardian

The lefty paper accepts the necessity of higher fees, and appreciates Browne’s attempt to protect poorer
students.

“The Liberal Democrats, who were in denial about higher education's financial problems at the election,
have been forced to make a rapid U-turn to an uncomfortable reality.”

“The great virtue of Lord Browne's report is that it recognises the realities while attempting to uphold a
core set of policy principles that should be broadly supported.”

But still wants definite upper limit on fees, and wants the repayment system to squeeze higher earners
more.

“Not everything about the report is right, and significant parts of it should not be accepted – the case for a
more realistic but still effective cap on fees remains a strong one, for example, and the student loan
repayment terms of the proposed system still have dangerously regressive aspects which Mr Cable seems
to accept must be sorted.”
The Times

Also broadly in favour, with some caveats over the possibility that well-qualified applicants may be scared
off by the prospect of higher fees. But the paper offers no suggestions on how the proposals could be
improved, and suggests the government should accept Browne’s plans wholesale.

“Although the proposals may not be popular and they may not be perfect, there is no better option on
offer.”

The Daily Telegraph

They love it, no qualifications.

The Independent

Like The Guardian, the Indy accepts that higher fees are necessary, and says Browne offers the “least
unfair” option.

"The Coalition Government, in accepting the proposals of the Browne Review on university funding
yesterday, is moving in the direction of the least unfair reform on offer.”

But again, the possibility that higher fees will deter the less well-off.

“Yet this overhaul needs to be accompanied by some safeguards. We cannot be certain how talented
students from less-advantaged backgrounds will respond to the inevitable hike in fees charged by the most
famous academic institutions. The present level of fees has not been a disincentive, but a doubling of this
rate could well be. And the improved financial grants suggested by the Browne Review might prove

100 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
inadequate to counteract this. The intake of all higher education institutions will need to be closely
monitored to ensure that our most prestigious universities do not once again become enclaves of the
privileged.”
The Daily Mail

The only major paper to express serious doubts about Browne’s proposals, the Mail acknowledges that
university finance is a mess, but savages Browne under the telling headline: Yet again, the middle classes
will suffer.

"While we fully accept there are no easy answers, we have the deepest reservations about the proposals
outlined by former BP boss Lord Browne, which would saddle graduates with debts of around £40,000
before they start work.”

“Any funding scheme should fulfil two purposes: to keep Britain at the cutting edge of teaching and
research and to enable the brightest to realise their full potential. Lord Browne’s proposals risk failing on
both counts.”
The Sun

The red top has no trouble with the idea of higher fees.

“Higher university tuition fees are inevitable because money is so tight.”

But oddly, it rejects one of the central arguments in favour of fees—that graduates earn more over their
lifetimes.

“Once, a degree guaranteed better pay. No longer.”

And it is unconcerned that some talented students might decide not to go to university, since university is
not for everyone. And besides, Simon Cowell and Alan Sugar have done just fine without degrees.

2010/10/13 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG:

SCIENTISTS LOBBY PARLIAMENT TO HALT CUTS

Researchers fear science has been branded an expense instead of an investment in the future, says Dr
Hilary Leevers

101 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Scientists add pressure to the coalition government over cuts to science
research. Photograph: Linda Nylind

It's rare to see the largest committee room at the House of Commons packed with constituents demanding
to meet their MPs. It's rarer still for those constituents to be mild-mannered scientists and engineers.

But that's exactly what we had yesterday when well over 100 constituents came to parliament to lobby
their MPs about the importance of science funding.

Many of them had never been to parliament before, and some had come from as far afield as Norwich and
Pembrokeshire, to do so.

One slight hiccup was that Vince Cable couldn't make it – he was in the chamber of the Commons making a
statement on the Browne review and student finance. But more than 20 MPs came to listen to their
constituents concerns, and yet more sent along their staff.

The lobby was organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering(CaSE) as part of the Science is
Vital campaign – to show the political price that would be paid for cuts to the UK's research funding, and to
drive homecore messages about what such cuts would mean.

Bluntly, there are two ways we can get rid of the deficit: cutting spending, or building growth. CaSE is
worried that, due to an inexplicable misunderstanding, the Treasury has put investment in science and
engineering in the wrong pile. Money spent on science and engineering is an investment for the future,
with a historically proven high rate of return, rather than a "spend" that should be up for cuts. Cuts to
science and engineering would be the ultimate false economy.

The lobby complements the raw mass of nearly 35,000 signatures on the Science is Vital petition, and the
crowd of more than 2,000 people who attended the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury last
Saturday.

The petition has attracted high profile signatures from the science and engineering community, including
the current and future presidents of the Royal Society, university vice-chancellors, industry leaders and
high profile figures like Professor Brian Cox.

But it is perhaps the people who are not scientists and engineers that make the petition more powerful –
these include priests and police officers, musicians and artists, doctors and nurses. It also includes many
who are looking to science for an answer, like the sufferers of motor neurone disease or cancer, and those
who care for them or have been bereaved.

The need to support and capitalise upon the UK's strength in science and engineering should not be
politically divisive, not least because of their ability to drive economic growth.

Indeed, the lobby, petition and a corresponding parliamentary early day motion that MPs can sign to show
their support (66 have already done so), have all secured cross-party backing.

And there was a good representation of MPs across the political spectrum at the lobby yesterday. Three
MPs hosted the event: Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat) and David Morris (Conservative) who spoke at
the lobby, and Chi Onwurah (Labour), who arrived just after being elected to Labour's shadow team for
Business, Innovation and Skills.
102 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Dr Jenny Rohn, spokesperson for Science is Vital, and Imran Khan, director of Campaign for Science &
Engineering, both spoke about the importance of securing science and engineering for the UK's future
prosperity, and Professor Colin Blakemore made an impassioned call for a reinvigoration of our support for
research.

Professor Adrian Smith, the director general for Science and Research and one of the most important civil
servants for science and engineering, attended the lobby and read out a statement from Cable conveying
his and David Willetts's views.

Cable said his colleagues across Whitehall and the Treasury valued the productivity and efficiency of UK
research and the success of its universities. But there was a worrying inconsistency between rationale and
policy: "It is not possible to predict the benefits of specific pieces of research in advance, or to anticipate
the growth sectors of the future in which to invest the marginal pound. However, we will have no choice
but to prioritise even more than we do now in what is a fiercely competitive environment for funding."

He warned that "not every academic, department or institution can necessarily continue to expect public
research funding". He ended: "Science, research and innovation are vital to this country's future growth,
and we must plan a future together that makes the most of the UK's competitive advantages in these
financially difficult times."

Both Smith and Huppert said they had been asked to report the lobby to Cable. We are confident that the
huge number of people who came into the heart of our parliamentary democracy to emphasise why they
think science is vital means the message will get through to Cable, and from him to the cabinet
negotiations.

If you missed the lobby, there is still time to make your views known to your MPs – write to them and try
to meet them in parliament or their local surgeries – it is their responsibility to hear your views. It is vitally
important that MPs understand the essential role that science and engineering need to play in building the
UK's future prosperity. That's true not only in advance of the publication of the comprehensive spending
review's publication on 20 October, but is also critical for the battles we will keep having to fight for
science and engineering in the future.

Hilary Leevers is assistant director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering

2010/10/14 THE GREAT BEYOND: NO CAP-

AND-TRADE? FOCUS ON R&D...

Now that everybody has formally given up on comprehensive climate legislation in the
US Congress, a disparate group of think tanks is proposing a fall back plan that would turn the focus away
from regulation and toward a coordinated federal research and development programme for clean energy
(Bloomberg).

103 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Unveiled Wednesday by the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Breakthrough
Institute, a new report dubbed "Post-Partisan Power" seeks to find center ground on an issue that has
become wildly polarized (for more on that, see this week's election coverage).

The backbone of the proposal is a $25 billion annual R&D program for clean energy innovation. The
document builds in part on a proposal to create a new network of regional energy innovation institutes
proposed earlier by the Brookings Institution. The idea is similar in concept to the Energy Innovation Hubs
being rolled out by the current administration but would focus on developing - and deploying - regional
solutions with the involvement of businesses and universities. The group recommends $5 billion annually
for that and another $1.5 billion annually for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.

Other proposals would target science education, reform energy subsidies and expand government - and in
particular defense - procurements of clean energy technologies. Various mechanisms are proposed to pay
for these ventures, including phasing out unproductive subsidies, creating surcharges on oil and electricity,
tapping oil and gas leasing revenues, or even creating "a very small carbon price" to generate new
revenues.

That last piece sounded a bit like a carbon tax, which has never been popular among politicians. But given
the lack of consensus in other areas, long-term R&D intended to bring the cost of clean energy down might
well be one area where lawmakers will be able to agree.
COMMENTS
Both cap and trade and energy R&D are essential.
Energy R&D will not persuade the world to pursue the thousands of low-cost, highly effective energy
conservation measures which are still to be implemented. C+T can direct the world toward these simple,
low-tech conservation measures, and towards the necessary cultural changes for a sustainable society.
Posted by: Tom Markowitz | October 14, 2010 01:43 AM
Top of Form

2010/10/14 THE GREAT BEYOND: ‘BONFIRE

OF THE QUANGOS’ SINGES SCIENCE ADVICE
The full list of bodies offering scientific advice, oversight and scrutiny to the UK government that are to be
axed or reformed was released today, a part of the final account of the new coalition’s ‘bonfire of the
quangos’.

As previously announced, among the high profile casualties are the respected Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority (see Nature’s previous coverage: UK embryo
agency faces the axe).

The full quango reform list released today – interest in which has brought down the Cabinet Office website
where it resides – lays bare the full extent of the reform in science advice.

In addition to those bodies being outright abolished, another swathe of expert committees and advisory
boards are being brought closer to government by moving them inside their sponsoring departments.
These include committees on hazardous substances, air quality, carcinogenicity.

Other science-related casualties include the Regional Development Agencies - which support local science,
various medical advisory groups - including the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisations, and
the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.

104 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/14 ALICE BELL BLOG: SCIENCE
BLOGS (EUREKA)
Posted on October 14, 2010 by alicerosebell

Hidden behind the fuss over the Science 100 in last week’s Times Eureka magazine, I picked six science
blogs for them. I thought it was worth re-posting it here, with a couple of added notes.

Mind Hacks. Thoughtful critique of neuroscience issues, plus various brain-themed cultural detritus
Vaughan’s found down the back of the internet.

SciCurious. Another in the army of brain-bloggers. The 3rd person style isn’t for everyone, but Sci’s funny,
clever and writes with irreverent curiosity.

Along with Mindhacks and SciCurious, I could easily added Neuroanthropology, Neuron Culture,The Frontal
Cortex, Neurophilosophy and Neurotribes in this “army”. I wasn’t really that into neuroscience (and
associated fields) until recently, but this community of imaginative, thoughtful and skilled writers has
pulled me in.

Gimpyblog’s posterous. I don’t always agree with Gimpy, but his posterous notes are generally thought
provoking, always well written and often make me laugh.

I picked the posterous over the blog because he writes more about policy and media there, which I’m
personally more interested in. But it’s worth noting the freshness of the posterous posts too. I could say
similar about Ben Goldacre - his posterous can be a lot more interesting than the polished columns on his
blog. Ben headlines the posterous as things “not clever enough” for his main blog, but there is something
about seeing clever-ness in action (even when it means the author’s got something slightly wrong).

Exquisite Life. One for UK science policy anoraks, from Research Fortnight. I especially enjoy their
annotated versions of political speeches. Is gradually building community of commenters.

On the point about commenters, I really wish the Royal Society policy blog had a comment button. I don’t
think I’ve ever felt a desire to comment there myself (which might say something about the style of
writing) but it’d be nice to know I could if I wanted to, and I’m sure they’d get some authoritative and
interesting commentators. Comment spaces are also an opportunity for readers to talk to each other,
reflecting blogging as a dynamic and broad discussion. It’s kind of sad the RS blogs don’t have them.

Wellome Library. I love science blogs for the same reason I love libraries: piles of interconnected
knowledge just inviting you get lost within. Visit this blog, but visit the library too.

I really like the idea of libraries blogging. I wish more did. I’d love to see some less polished blogging – “ooo
we just found this”, or “a visitor’s reading this” as well as the more essayistic pieces (perhaps using twitter
or posterous, or just working more loosely on a standard blog platform). I’d also like to underline how
wonderful the Wellcome Library as a place and a blog is. Really, can’t recommend it enough.

Not So Humble Pie. A cooking blog, but one that is famous for its science-themed cookies, I added this as
an example of how science pops up across the blogosphere (see also).

I should stress this isn’t a list of “top” science blogs, it’s a list of blogs I put together as a group to share
with Eureka readers. For example, I’ve missed The Bubble Chamber, Laelaps, Atlantic Tech,Soft

105 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Machines, Wonderland, STS Observatory, The Guardian’s Notes and Theories, the Times’Eureka
Daily and Not Exactly Rocket Science (and that’s just tip of the iceberg…).

2010/10/14 EXQUISITE LIFE: NICK CLEGG'S

TERMINAL DILEMMA ON STUDENT FEES
Newsnight last night showed us the depth of tensions within the Liberal Democrats over fees - and why
universities should be much more worried than they are about the possibility of higher fees being defeated
in a vote in the House of Commons.

It’s all a question of arithmetic.

“The Lib Dem high command have made it clear to me that they expect ministers to support the final
package *on fees+,” said the programme's reporter, Michael Crick.

That’s 18 ministers, to which you could add another 5 junior bag carriers. In that case, to defeat the
government, Lib Dem antis would have to muster over 40 votes - unrealistic. That's the kind of inevitability
the Coalition's leaders want to cultivate.

But then we got this exchange between Jermey Paxman and Simon Hughes. Hughes has just explained that
the party’s policy is what it is on fees and likely to remain that way. Paxman is poking fun at him
(watch here).

“So you’ve got 18 MPs who will vote against party policy?”

“Well not necessarily. They won’t necessarily vote against party policy because the Coalition Agreement
allows Liberal Democrats to abstain on this issue. But backbenchers obviously are free to rebel if that’s
what they feel they need to do.”

Hughes is saying that instead of voting against party policy (andfor the government), the Lib Dem ministers
can abstain and be consistent with the Coalition Agreement. That, Hughes is suggesting, is the course of
action that is consistent with the party’s position and, we can infer, acceptable to him. Meanwhile
backbenchers are “free to rebel” - ie vote against higher fees. In this case, it will only need about 20 Lib
Dem MPs to vote against to potentially defeat a rise in fees, a number that is entirely plausible.

Maybe Hughes is bluffing. Maybe the party will be persuaded by Vince Cable. Maybe Nick Clegg will pull off
a remarkable act of leadership. Maybe MPs will be too terrified by the thought of a split that they are
cowed into line by the whips. But there’s one thing you can say for certain about a nightmare scenario in
politics: you don’t ignore it.

Yesterday I looked at what this scenario means for the Coalition (see Why David Cameron may need to
nuke the Lib Dems on fees). Now let’s look at what it means for Clegg.

Suppose for a moment that Clegg is unable to wring from his Coalition partners much in the way of
concessions, and that he presses ahead with attempting to lead his ministerial team past the Aye tellers.
This would be not only a breach of party policy but also a breach of the limited dispension from that policy
given by the party when it approved the Coalition Agreement. Not to mention those pesky NUS pledges.

Clegg could then face opposition from a majority of his parliamentary colleagues, and the official party
apparatus (such as the federal policy committee that last night reiterated its support for existing policy),
and from campaigning elements such as the youth wing - as well as from the social liberal wing that the

106 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
economically liberal wing has excluded from power via the Coalition deal (Hughes, Charles Kennedy, Paddy
Ashdown, Menzies Campbell etc).

What happens then if Clegg presses ahead and leads an Aye vote in the face if all that? The worst case
scenario for him is a putsch that topples him as leader - and places a question mark over the Coalition
itself. That’s clearly unlikely for many reasons. But what those in the universities hoping for higher fees
may have to ask themselves is, is this really a gamble he’s willing to take?

Labour or Conservative leaders could just ride over all this party rumbling. But the Lib Dems are different -
or at least they think they are. We may be about to find out how true those claims to deep democracy
really are.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

Comments
When is the british nation going to realise that putting eleatist toffs into power when they have never known a
single days financial hardship in their silverspoon lives, is never going to bring about the changes this broken
down country so desperatly needs. If the rich tory idiots want to pay more for tuition let em go to america
where they will be at home with the rest of the I'm better than you brigade. Good riddance.
Posted by: Andy Hall | October 14, 2010 at 08:02 PM
Some young people are now starting to ask questions about Capitalism and who it serves the most - is it just the
few? We need to reititerate that there should (in my opinion) be 'checks' on Capitalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJLaRhTKzw8
Posted by: Vicky | October 15, 2010 at 07:26 PM

2010/10/15 CASE: SUPPORTING RESEARCH;

NOT JUST FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
By IMRAN KHAN

However powerfully scientists and engineers make their arguments for the importance of funding research
and development, the case is made all the stronger by having outside interests make the same points. CaSE
has compiled the opinions of noted and influential sources, below.

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London:

“We face two serious challenges – the first is an immigration cap that is currently keeping out academic
talent, and the second is of course is cuts in scientific funding. That risks throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.”

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development):

“Governments must continue to invest in future sources of growth, such as education, infrastructure
and research. Cutting back public investment in support for innovation may provide short-term fiscal relief,
but will damage the foundations of long-term growth.”

Trades Union Congress:

“Many thousands of trade unionists work in science – in government laboratories, in industry and in the
teaching of science in schools and universities. They are helping to build an economy and society that is
confident in its use of science. This will be essential as Britain rebalances its economy towards high value,
high skill industries in the future.”

107 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The Institute of Fiscal Studies:

“Cuts in spending on science are likely to have important long-term consequences … the UK would become
a less desirable place for firms to conduct research”

Lord Waldegrave, former Conservative Science Minister and Chief Secretary to Treasury:

“Investment in science cannot be turned on and odd on a political whim – we must have long-term
investment. If we cut science now, we will seriously damage our economic prospects.”

National Farmers Union:

“Farmers are being asked to be more productive, while using fewer resources, reducing agriculture’s
impact on the environment and coping with climate change. Investment in research and development is
absolutely critial in finding solutions to these challenges and ensuring we can feed a growing population.”

Prof Jonathan Haskell, economist at Imperial College Business School:

“If support for research councils was cut by £1bn, GDP would fall by around £10bn”

David Cairncross, Senior Policy Adviser at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI):

“Publicly-funded investment in both research and development has a multiplier effect, making the UK a
more attractive location for businesses to invest.”

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust:

“It sends the pharmaceutical community and the medical charity community an extremely bad signal if
government cuts this area of funding.”

Barack Obama, President of the United States:

“At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for
research is somehow a luxury at moments defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is
more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it
has ever been before.”

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany:

“During my term as Federal Chancellor, the Federal Government has repeatedly declared that the
prosperity of a country such as Germany, with its scarce mineral resources, must be sought through
investment in research, education and science, and this to a disproportionate degree.”

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France:

“Science is, I am well aware, a fragile enterprise and scientists must be defended against obscurantism,
fanaticism, wilful ignorance and contempt for the truth. The economic downturn should not prompt us to
postpone investment in science, but rather to bring it forward and consolidate it.”

Dr Manmohan Singh, President of India:

“If India has to emerge as a knowledge power in the 21st century, then it can only be through a strong
capability in science and technology.”

108 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/15 BBC NEWS: SPENDING REVIEW:
UNIVERSITIES 'TO FACE £4.2BN CUT'
By Hannah RichardsonBBC News education reporter

Students and their families face a steep increase in tuition

fees

Universities in England face funding cuts of £4.2bn in the coming Spending Review, an e-mail leaked to the
BBC News website suggests.

Universities UK head Professor Steve Smith wrote to vice-chancellors saying this week's Browne Review set
out figures that "confirm our worst fears".

He says they signal a £3.2bn or 79% cut from teaching and £1bn from research in next week's Spending
Review.

The government said it could not comment.

This is because the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it could not speculate about the
Chancellor's spending review plans.

Currently universities are given around £11bn in government grants a year - this covers undergraduate and
post-graduate teaching, research funding and infrastructure.

The UCU lecturers' union said cuts of the order being discussed would lead to university closures while the
National Union of Students warned the government was stripping away the public funding of universities.

In his letter to fellow vice-chancellors, the UUK president suggests the impact of the Spending Review will
be more important than Lord Browne's review of fees published this week.

This is "because potential cuts have been getting worse and worse", he says.

He continues: "Browne explicitly says that Hefce (England's university funding body) will have teaching
funding of £700m; the current sum is £3.9bn.

"This implies a cut of around £3.2bn in state funding."

This would represent a 79% cut in the teaching grant.

“Start Quote

Browne's figures confirms our worst fears”

109 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Professor Steve SmithUniversities UK president

He adds: "Browne's figures confirm our worst fears. Cuts in the order of £1bn for research also appear to
be proposed."

A £4.2bn cut in funding would be almost four times that which universities had been expected to make by
the previous government.

'Lost funding'

Professor Smith says the Browne report, which itself called for unlimited tuition fees, was framed by "what
is coming on October 20".

And he adds that universities will do all they can to "replace as much of this lost funding as possible". This
means raising tuition fees to make up for lost state funding, he says.

But he also warns that this may not be possible before 2012, when the government is expecting to have
measures in place to allow for a rise in fees.

He adds: "The biggest worry is simple to state: if Browne fails to get through the Commons, or gets
unpicked, or gets accepted but only after major changes are made, we will simply not be able to replace
the unprecedented reductions in state funding that are coming in the Spending Review."

Responding to the claim, the general secretary of the UCU, Sally Hunt, said: "It is hard to believe that any
government could contemplate making £4.2bn cuts to higher education given that it generates massive
economic growth.

"Cuts of this magnitude will leave many cities and towns without a local university and our students paying
the highest public fees in the world."

She called for an urgent review of the impact of "these unimaginable cuts".

President of the NUS Aaron Porter said: "The devastating scale of the cuts to publicly funded degrees
planned for next week is laid bare by this admission.

"The true agenda of the coalition government this week is to strip away all public support for arts,
humanities and social science provision in universities and to pass on the costs directly to students' bank
accounts."

He accused vice-chancellors of standing by plans that would lead to many universities closing down.

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills dismissed the figures as speculation

He added: "Lord Browne made recommendations to government this week on a new funding system. His
proposals are for graduates to make a greater contribution to the cost of their education, linked to their
ability to pay.

"These recommendations are currently under consideration and are informing our comprehensive
spending review negotiations with the Treasury. Ensuring the university sector is properly funded remains
a key objective for the government."

But Shadow Business Secretary John Denham said the coalition was clearly planning unprecedented cuts in
higher education.

"It will mean pushing all or most of the cost of the university education onto students.

110 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
"For Britain in a global economy it will damage one of the main drivers of growth, jobs and prosperity," he
added.

2010/10/15 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: TAM

LONDON: GEEKS AND COMEDIANS GATHER TO
CELEBRATE CRITICAL THINKING

The message going out from the second annual TAM conference this weekend is that science, technology
and rational thinking are essential to the future of the UK

Simon Singh will be on the Skepticism and the Law panel at TAM London
this weekend. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

What do comedians and scientists have in common? Often, it's a love of all things geeky, and nowhere is
that more obvious than at TAM London, the UK's biggest conference celebrating science and critical
thinking. Now in its second year, TAM (short for The Amazing Meeting) has been described by Jonathan
Ross as "the best event ever!!!" and arrives this weekend with a line-up of speakers including Richard
Dawkins, comic book legend Alan Moore, Graham Linehan and Stephen Fry.

Guardian Science blogger Martin Robbins is covering the event here with a live-blogging marathon over the
weekend, featuring commentary, audio clips and photos from the conference and fringe events.

TAM London is a fundraiser for the James Randi Educational Foundation, home of the Million Dollar
Paranormal Challenge, which promotes critical thinking and scientific literacy.

Organiser Tracy King said: "The focus is on entertainment and education. People come to TAM because
they want to learn and hear from leading speakers on subjects which interest them, but they want to have
a good time doing it. Our mix of academics, comedians and writers ensures an incredible event where the
public can meet like-minded people without feeling like being into science or geek stuff makes them a
minority.

"With science funding under threat, it's more important than ever for TAM London to reach the public with
its message – that science, technology and rational thinking are essential to the healthy future of the UK."

111 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The full TAM London 2010 line-up includes:

Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, James Randi, Graham Linehan, Richard Wiseman, Marcus
Chown, Sue Blackmore, PZ Myers, Alan Moore, Melinda Gebbie, Andy Nyman, Robin Ince, Adam
Rutherford,Simon Singh and Cory Doctorow. Details can be found atwww.tamlondon.org

2010/10/15 NEW YORK TIMES: UNIVERSITIES

IN BRITAIN BRACE FOR CUTS IN SUBSIDIES
By SARAH LYALL

LONDON — For months, Britain’s universities have warned in apocalyptic terms about the devastating cuts
they face as part of the government’s grand plan to reduce public-sector costs. Now, with the government
poised next week to announce its spending plans, their worst fears seem about to come true.

Prof. Steve Smith, president of Universities U.K., which represents Britain’s higher-learning institutions,
said the government was likely to cut about 80 percent of the current $6.2 billion it pays annually for
university teaching, and about $1.6 billion from the $6.4 billion it provides for research.

To make up for the shortfall, universities would have to raise tuition to an average of more than $11,000,
Professor Smith said, and doing so would require Parliament to lift the cap on such fees, now set at $5,260.

“It’s a savage cut, and it’s unprecedented, and it’s the government moving out of the funding of higher
education,” Professor Smith, vice chancellor of the University of Exeter, said in an interview. “We’ve had a
big comfort blanket called state funding, and now we’re being thrown out of the nest.”

Education is just one area where the state plans a major retrenchment. With the government aiming to
find $130 billion in savings over the next five years, every department has been asked to plan for cuts as
high as 40 percent; the government will present the results in its final spending review on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, interest groups representing virtually ever sector — the arts, the military, transportation and
the like — have been pleading that they cannot absorb such drastic shocks to their systems.

The pleading, however, has had little effect.

Britain’s universities, heavily subsidized by the state, already feel pared to the bone after a series of cuts in
the past year or so. In anticipation of further cuts, many are beginning to lay off instructors, reduce the
number of classes and shut down departments. Some instructors and researchers, dismayed by how little
money they are being offered and worried about future financing, have abandoned Britain for more
lucrative offers at universities abroad.

Adrian Owen, a renowned neuroscientist at the University of Cambridge and an expert on brain injury,
announced recently that he and his team of five researchers were moving to the University of Western
Ontario in Canada.

“U.K. science is going through a period of uncertainty, and many of my more senior colleagues said this
might not be a bad time to be leaving,” The Guardian quoted Dr. Owen as saying. “There’s nobody in the
U.K. putting down $20m saying, ‘We think what you’re doing is really cool; come and do it here.’ ”

Middlesex University said last spring that it intended to close its philosophy department.Swansea
University in Wales announced proposals to reduce the teaching staff in its modern languages department

112 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
to 10 people, from 22. King’s College London said it would abolish its chair in paleography, the study of
ancient handwriting — the only such post in Britain. (After an international outcry, it proposed creating a
new position in “paleography and manuscript studies” that would be “fully funded from philanthropic
monies.”)

Saying it would scale back departments not underpinned by “world class” research, the University of
Southampton closed its department of sports science and stopped offering undergraduate classes in social
work last year.

Britain’s universities currently get about $22.4 billion a year from the government. Until about 10 years
ago, they charged no tuition. Tuition since then has been capped by law at $5,260 for students from
the European Union. (Students from outside Europe pay much higher tuition that more accurately reflects
the actual cost of their schooling.)

A report on higher education financing issued this week by John Browne, the former chairman of British
Petroleum, proposed lifting the cap and giving universities the right to set their own tuition. But any
institution charging more than $9,500 would have to pay the state a levy on the higher rate.

The proposals in Mr. Browne’s report face a rocky time in Parliament, where many members of the Liberal
Democrat party, part of the coalition government, are implacably opposed to higher tuition. But Mr. Smith
warned that the increase was the only way universities could fill the gap left by the impending budget cuts.

“If we don’t have them, we’re in a mess,” he said. “There’s no alternative source of funding.”

Mr. Browne’s report also proposes withdrawing government support completely from subjects in the arts
and humanities and concentrating it in areas he believes contribute more to the economy, like science and
engineering.

“As far as I’m concerned, this is philistinism on a large scale,” said Paul Cottrell, the head of policy at
the University and College Union, which represents teachers in higher education. Some universities may
have to abolish subjects in the humanities, Mr. Cottrell said. “The alternative is to cut costs,” he said, “but
as soon as you do that you get a reputation for poor quality, and you lose your overseas students pretty
quickly.”

While institutions like Oxford or Cambridge can easily find students willing to pay, higher tuition would
probably create problems for smaller, less respected or less research-intensive universities, or for those
with poorer students, Mr. Cottrell said.

“The question is whether all institutions would be able to attract students at that level of tuition,” he said.
“We think a lot of students will be put off, so demand will fall. And it’s possible that some of our
institutions will fail, if their only source of income is teaching funding and they get very little research
funding.”

Professor Smith of Universities U.K. said such drastic cuts in government spending were not necessary.
Speaking of Prime Minister David Cameron’s notion of “the big society,” he said, “When they say the big
society, they mean the small state.”

He added, “I think they’re cutting the university sector because they can, and I think that’s terribly
damaging for the future of the country.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 19, 2010

113 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
An article on Saturday about fears among British universities that the government will severely reduce
funding in order to reduce public-sector costs misidentified the university in Wales that has proposed
slashing its modern languages teaching staff to 10 instructors from 22 in anticipation of a funding
reduction. It is Swansea, not Cardiff.

2010/10/15 MARTIN MCQUILLAN BLOG: IF

YOU TOLERATE THIS… LORD BROWNE AND THE
PRIVATISATION OF THE HUMANITIES
By Martin McQuillan

The pithily entitled ‘Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance’ was published
on Tuesday. In short, for those not parochial enough to be concerned by this, it was a committee set up by
the previous Labour government, chaired by ex-BP boss John Browne (as one of the many sinecures
offered to him, including Chair of the Tate Trustees, in compensation for the homophobia that chased him
out of the oil industry, otherwise it would have been him and not Tony Hayward taking the rap for the
Deepwater Horizon disaster) charged with considering future funding arrangements for universities and
their students in England. The headlines from the report are that 1. The current cap of £3,290 on student
tuition fees should be scrapped in favour of potentially unlimited fees set by universities themselves, 2.
The current teaching grant distributed to English universities should be cut by £3.2billion with a 100%
reduction for the arts, humanities and social sciences. In effect Browne’s committee (which included the
Chief Executive of Standard Chartered PLC, the Head of McKinsey, and two Vice-Chancellors) has at a
stroke privatised the arts and humanities in England. The committee recommends that the state should no
longer have any investment in these areas and that private individuals who wish to pursue such things at
their own cost should pay for them.

It is hard to know where to begin with this. There are no workarounds, no accommodations to be made, no
temporary crisis to be endured; this is the nuclear option, total and irreversible wipeout. Now, there is a
difference between the publication of a so-called ‘Independent’ Review (Browne has now moved on to his
next job advising the coalition government on Whitehall job cuts, and his review has clearly been hijacked
to feed the ideological attack on the state currently being pursued by an administration that no one voted
for) and how it translates into legislation through the torturous process of what Washington would call ‘the
pork barrel politics’ of buying off a Lib Dem back bench revolt. However, there would seem to be little to
be hoped for in this regard. What is striking here is not that higher education (and the arts, humanities and
social sciences in particular) have been targeted but that they have been the first thing to be attacked and
in such a spectacularly ruthless manner. The calculation must be that the news agenda will have moved on
next week when everyone is more concerned by the fate of ‘useful things’ like hospitals and fire stations in
the Comprehensive Spending Review. And of course, if the ConDems cannot be bothered to fund
humanities teaching any more there is very little prospect that they will continue to fund humanities
research. ‘The future has been cancelled’, as Graham Allen, writing in the context of Irish cuts, put it
recently.

Most people will blame the Conservatives; the Conservatives will hope that most people will blame the
LibDems. I do not blame either; I expect nothing else from the guardians of class privilege and their
unscrupulous carpet-bagging associates. The people who are to blame for this are the Vice-Chancellors of
UK universities (with one honourable exception) who have consistently pressed for an increase in tuition
fees in order to maximise the return to their institutions. Tuition Fees used to be called ‘top-up fess’
114 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
because they were additional to state funding which had fallen behind the real costs of running
universities. However, the short-termism of Vice-Chancellors failed to understand that as soon as fees
were introduced the university sector would not only lose its place in the queue for, but its claim entirely
on, the public purse. The Browne Report hits Vice-Chancellors with a sucker punch: you can have unlimited
fees but you can no longer have public funding.

While science and ‘priority’ subjects will continue to receive a teaching grant the rest of us must fend for
ourselves. The people who will be most affected by this is not so-called ‘teaching-focussed universities’ but
those so-called ‘elite’, so-called ‘research-intensive’, so-called ‘universities’. Dear reader, I spent 10 years
directing research in a Russell Group university, I know how much mediocrity there is out there, wrapped
in snobbery and shrouded in utterly bogus ‘missions groups’ which allow ministers to divide and rule the
sector through its own vanity. If there is no public funding and no funding council to distribute it then there
will be no cap on student numbers for institutions. Humanities departments in ‘elite universities’ will only
survive by piling students high and servicing them at low costs. The Browne Report does not set them free
to compete with the world’s best universities, it impoverishes them and turns all of the arts, humanities
and social sciences in England into teaching-focussed universities. Lets not even get started on what it
means for the Art Schools and monotechnics; all advances made in funding of the humanities over the last
thirteen years have been put into sharp and irrecoverable reverse.

I could make a defence of the worth of the humanities but if legislators cannot recognize their value from
the outset then no words here will persuade them. Nor will I make the obvious case for the social mobility
afforded by a university education—as if a Conservative-lead administration gave two figs for the
education of the lower orders. However, the fundamental reason to oppose tuition fees of any kind is that
those who benefited from a free higher education as a democratic right should not when in government
(as a result of that free higher education) tell future generations that they must now take on mortgage-
sized debts to pay for the same privilege. How this is ‘progressive and fair’, as our politicians like to say, is a
mystery. One should not just resist this situation; it has to be refused utterly. Distracted by the chimera of
RAE results and QAA inspections, academics in the United Kingdom have not had the best track record in
saying no to government in the last twenty years, but if this does not rouse us nothing ever will. And if it
can happen in England it will without doubt be rolled out across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Europe,
and Australia. This is a culture war in which critical thought is threatened with extinction. It is time to stop
writing the monograph on the footnotes of Henry James, drop the myth of ‘research’ and ‘teaching’
institutions, and do something quickly to save everything any academic worthy of the name holds dear.
Comments
At 10:55 pm on October 16, 2010, Nathan Widder wrote:
The educational backgrounds of those who are going to implement this plan to eliminate all government
funding for arts, humanities and social sciences:
David Willetts studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics (at Oxford)
George Osborne studied Modern History (at Oxford)
Nick Clegg studied Social Anthropology (at Cambridge…)
David Cameron studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics (at Oxford)
At 10:15 am on October 17, 2010, Amy Kenyon wrote:
Thank you for this! It is hugely important to point out the extent to which this is an attack on the
humanities and the ideological and tactical specifics related to that attack. At the same time, the issue
needs to be linked to the larger critique of „Condem‟ fiscal policy. The threat to critical thought needs to
be fought, along with the threat to other sectors. The closure of a humanities department diminishes us
and reduces our life chances, as do the closures of hospitals and fire stations. So, while it is important to
analyse the specifics for each sector, it is equally important to open lines of communication with all who
are threatened – students, patients, people in burning houses, benefits claimants… the list grows longer
each day. So, anyway… thanks again and I hope you can link your work to the „Coalition of Resistance‟ and
other broad based campaigns against the cuts.
At 2:23 pm on October 17, 2010, Toby Juliff wrote:

115 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
An insightful and provocative piece – thanks.
I would add that the Russell Group‟s clairvoyant response to the Browne Report staggers belief. The
research buy-ins airlifted in for RAE 2008 are already being jettisoned for teaching intensive & low-cost
courses at the expense of critical thinking.
„Immediacy‟ and „fiscal sustainability‟ have driven cuts in research in Russell Group Universities for the
past year, and their contribution – via the 1994 Group and Russell Group recommendations in January and
May – signalled what the VC‟s (certain honourable exceptions noted) were thinking. They acted on it pre-
empting a massive cut in the teaching budget.
And what is especially staggering is that the recommendations of the Russell Group and 1994 Group
(nearly all of which have been taken up) legitimated an attack that was already well under way on critical
thinking. Do they feel red-faced about the extent of the cuts? They should. But no, the contingency plan
began long ago; the Browne Report merely put it into a cosy document. The Russell Group – who have in the
last week announced the „safeguarding‟ of existing excellent practice in teaching and research fail to
mention the past 6,12,18,24,36+ months of redundancies, enforced retirements and mothballing of
critically intensive course.
There will be fewer than expected cuts – the pain began some time ago.
At 6:49 pm on October 17, 2010, noel wrote:
Time to resist!
http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk
At 7:59 pm on October 17, 2010, John Sullivan wrote:
A large number of young people have just had their future stolen from them. Moreover, by piling debt
onto them from the age of 18, they tie them in to the debtor-speculator model that so benefits neoliberal
political elites.
At 9:53 am on October 18, 2010, Alistair Brown wrote:
This article really cuts to the heart of the problem. Making last ditch defences of the more ephemeral,
non-quantifiable value of the A&H is useless, given the mindset of government and big business.
However, in relation to this brave new world that is upon us, there‟s an interesting debate going on in the
US at the moment, in which it has been shown that the arts and humanities actually generate money for
universities. Whilst I utterly resent the privatisation of HE, if it has to come, we have to be aware (as
Browne was not, and many VCs are not) that supporting arts and humanities courses might actually be of
economic benefit.
See my post here for links and details: http://thepequodblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/do-arts-departments-
make-money-for.html
At 1:20 pm on October 18, 2010, Stephen Connolly wrote:
The comedian Stewart Lee tells a story about Margaret Thatcher visiting his university that sums up some
of this I think:
“In the late 80‟s Margaret Thatcher, the then prime-minister, took a tour of our University. In a library
she stopped and asked a young woman what she was studying. “Norse literature,” she replied. And
Thatcher said, “What a luxury.” Now, Njal‟s saga might not be to everyone‟s taste, but in a civilised
country surely we can make a space to allow someone to be the receptacle for such knowledge. As a hard
and fast rule, we should judge a society by the value it places on Viking literature and the ladies drawn to
learn about it.”
At 2:51 pm on October 18, 2010, Ian Pace wrote:
Read the responses of both Steve Smith –
seehttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413873&c=1 – and Wendy
Piatt – see http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/121-2010/4544-russell-group-response-to-
the-browne-review-of-university-funding/ . Piatt in particular does not even mention the fact that this report
will lead to the cutting of all HEFCE money for Arts and Humanities degree courses. At the end of her
report she simply adds a cautionary note about fee hikes being used as a substitute for government
funding.
Smith and Piatt have been lobbying for this for some time – are we really to believe that they couldn‟t
figure out the likely outcome? That if the government allows fees to go up, they will just deduct their
contribution accordingly?
Both of them bear a large measure of responsibility for the worst thing to happen to British higher
education since the war. It is time for them both to resign.
At 4:44 pm on October 18, 2010, Joe Hughes wrote:

116 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
As independent as Browne‟s review pretends to be, it is worth pointing out that it is an uncannily clear
reflection of the BIS‟s earlier policy statements in „Higher Ambitions‟:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-education/shape-and-structure/higher-ambitions
The basic argument of Higher Ambitions is (1) we can no longer fund higher education; (2) corporations
can; (3) we should therefore reorient higher education to meet the needs of employers.
This vocationalization of higher education is certainly part of a newer, quieter „culture war‟. But it doesn‟t
unfold at the level of values broadly conceived. It is built into the very structure of the current (and
previous) government. In 2009 the one department in charge of education, the Department for Education
and Skills, was split into two: the Department for Children, Schools and Family (recently renamed
„Department for Education‟) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The fact that the very department responsible for the future of higher education is called the
„Department for Business, Innovation and Skills‟ suggests that we can hardly expect it to make room for
critical thought, the humanities or the liberal arts in general. But more importantly it means we can‟t
expect a resistance to one or another of these reports to go terribly far in the long run.
At 9:16 pm on October 18, 2010, Simon Davies wrote:
But what can we do?
At 9:35 pm on October 18, 2010, AlisonB wrote:
You‟re absolutely right in your analysis of the situation, but what, exactly, should be done? I‟ve written to
my MP (a Liberal Democrat) and I will be at the demonstration in London that the UCU in their infinite
wisdom have organised for a Wednesday afternoon in mid-November, but after that, what action can we
take? Personally I‟m all for taking the French route of blockading oil refineries and suchlike, but I can‟t do
it by myself. Calls to arms are all well and good, but need to be followed up with a co-ordinated plan of
action.
At 11:47 pm on October 18, 2010, Claire wrote:
So relieved to read something that is explicit about the cultural implications of these proposals. And I
totally agree with you about the need for academics to become militant in defence of their profession –
the time for writing papers about the decline of the academy is well and truly over.
At 8:44 am on October 19, 2010, Amy Kenyon wrote:
Please join the demonstration outside Downing Street tomorrow at 6pm. Timed to coincide with the
Spending Review and organised by the Coalition of Resistance, it is an opportunity for ALL people facing
the threat of cuts to come together in broad based resistance. It‟s important to understand and fight
what is happening to the Humanities and universities in general, but equally important not to treat this in
isolation to other sectors. The Coalition has a follow up meeting on Monday 25th October and a National
Conference on 27th November. Check out the website – please – NUMBERS are so important right now.
Everybody in together!
At 5:30 pm on October 19, 2010, Beth wrote:
Time for a global student/faculty strike. Where goes England, there goes the rest of the world.

2010/10/15 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG

MARTIN: THE TAM LONDON 2010 LIVE BLOG

Welcome to the TAM London 2010 live blog! From Saturday morning I'll be bringing you regular updates,
audio clips, photos and maybe even the odd video clip from The Amazing Meeting, a two day celebration
of science and critical thinking.
117 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
NB: This page does not update automatically - who do you think I am, the BBC? Oh, and the live video is
back for the last two sessions!Watch along here.

Sunday: Day Two

16:32: Well that's it from me for TAM London 2010. It's been a fun two days, and tomorrow I'll do a quick
round-up of any blog posts and things that people do. In the meantime, I'm off to the pub. Take care, and
blog responsibly. Night!

16:20: Moore speaks in a sort of long, rambling, surrealist and humorous style that's very hard to live blog,
and in order to taunt me even further he's now going to launch into a poem. "The word cock appears half
way through, and it's okay to laugh at that point," he explains. He's a joy to watch.

16:14: Moore, captured by Kelly Haddow:

Alan Moore

16:10: Moore: "I can see that you have every reason in the world to be outraged by the advance of the
British fundamentalist religious right."

16:06: Okay, apparently it's just Alan Moore.

16:02: It's the final session, and in just an hour or so I can finally put down my laptop, and wrap my
bleeding and calloused fingers around a pint of cold beer. Coming up shortly, Josie Long interviews Alan
Moore, the write of Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and other stuff you can find on his Wikipedia cage.

15:58: Jo Schuppang of Berlin Skeptics has very kindly brought chocolate to the blogging table!

15:21: Right, time for a quick break and we'll be back around 10 to 4 forJosie Long interviewing Alan
Moore.

15:17: Myers: It's easy to vilify the internet, but if you look at the statistics, the creationist blogs are doing
pathetically. Even a mediocre science blog beats them for traffic.

15:12: My blogging colleague Evan Harris asks a good question, and makes a point that we should refuse to
accept the 'militant' slur. Myers:"What happens is a sneaky distortion of terms." For instance, Myers
explains, Nisbet attacks him as a 'bomb-thrower', which is a way of linking his rhetoric with violence.

118 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
15:09: Time for the Q&A then. I'll be honest, the quality of questions over the weekend has been mixed. In
response the the first, which was so dull I've forgotten it, Myers concocts a gem of a one-line
manifesto: "What we want is a culture of self-criticism."

15:01: PZ Myers speaks about this disturbing passage by Daniel Spratlin."These people are everywhere in
America. They are sociopathic. What do you say to people like this? We should be angry."

"I don't (nor do the majority of confessing Evangelicals) believe homosexuality to be abhorrent because my
"religion says so." Rather, I believe it to be so because God says so.

"I have no doubt that America will eventually accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Nor do I have a
problem with it. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not equal to American values. Never has been and never will
be. This world has to be destroyed in the end and I welcome it. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't
stand firm in my position and continue to shout.

"Do I want homosexuals to "feel isolated and ashamed to the point of suicide"? Of course not. I want them
to feel isolated and ashamed to the point of repentance."

14:58: Here's the Ray Comfort banana video just referenced by PZ Myers, in which he spectacularly fails to
explain how bananas disprove evolution:

14:53: "At conception it's just a slimy ball with wiggly sperm all around it, and it's not even as nice as it
sounds."

14:48: Myers: "I'm really into embryos.... the younger the better."

14:45: Myers gets controversial: "The Earth is not 6000 years old, it was not formed in 4004 BC."

14:42: Another update from The Pod Delusion who have interviewed DJ Grothe, President of JREF. Listen
below:

14:40: Myers identifies as a 'Gnu Atheist': "We're committed to the power of the evidential narrative. We
like stories, but what we like about stories is that they're backed up by some kind of supporting evidence."

14:37: PZ Myers: "We are atheists because we have a set of positive values that we hold."

14:34: Myers: "Do be a Richard!" or "Be the best dick you can be!"

14:34: Myers on "don't be a dick": "Telling people not to do things is very Old Testament, we should have
prohibition. And then of course 'dick' is so informal and rude."

14:32 Myers: "We shouldn't be gratuitously obnoxious, we should bepurposefully obnoxious."

14:32: PZ Myers on stage...

119 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
14:28: Matt Nisbet gets a mention, with PZ echoing my criticism of him which I'll repeat now "the irony of
Nisbet is that someone who claims to be an expert communicator is so bad at communicating."

14:26: Myers' talk is going to be about tone, feeding into the tedious debate about how nasty/nice people
are/aren't and what effect it does/doesn't have, most of which is evidence-free heat rather than useful
light.

14:24: And that's that, until this. Next up, PZ Myers, who you know fromPharyngula, the most popular
science blog on the internet.

14:18: Linehan mocking the PCC (the UK Press Complaints Commission) -"'we will listen to your concerns' -
yes, but you won't do anything about it."

14:13: Another good question from the audience about the role of comedy in skepticism. Linehan replies
that it's a good way of avoiding being too shrill, which I think is true. It's also a great way to reach a broader
audience, in my own opinion.

14:11: Linehan responding to a question on piracy: "Piracy has been amazing. Every time I release a DVD or
something like that I immediately get lots of people from America or Australia asking when it'll be released.
I don't think 'piracy' is a good word, I think 'sharing' is better."

Jon Ronson, who is a journalistic hero of mine, has a good way of taking questions from the audience, and
adding his own bits that take them to another level.

14:07: We're watching a video of some sort of small human (baby? toddler?) bashing it's head against a
cupboard while laughing, which Linehan suggests people say is the "most pointless thing on the
internet."Then someone hijacks Youtube and the projector and suddenly we're watching evil babies.
Linehan "I find this interesting because it's the first time in history parents have been able to do this, and
compare their experiences with other parents, and we're talking about it like it's a load of stupid shit."

14:04: Ronson and Linehan have both noted that events like 9/11 demonstrated a need for skepticism and
a skeptical movement to challenge prevailing narratives. Linehan "It's frightening that skepticism has to be
a movement, because you're just arguing that reality is reality. What a waste of energy, in a way."

14:01: Linehan on Jan Moir: "All people were pointing out there was bad manners." But criticizes people
who go to far, and hurl abuse. Linehan was concerned by some of the Pope responses too.

120 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
13:59: "We all need to be very very careful of our internet rights," Linehan points to e.g. ability of
protestors to document police protests, and people in general to hold authorities to account. "It feels to
me like democracy, and when people start to fight back against it it's because what we had before this
wasn't quite democracy, and now these people are scared."

13:57: Linehan: "I introduced 50 Cent to Lord Sugar. I just thought they seemed similar."

13:56: Slight technical issue here, the 'nipple' is falling off my keyboard.

13:55: What I'm getting from this talk is that Linehan spends a lot of time laughing at silly things on the
internet. I wish I was Graham Linehan.

13:54: Linehan giving a lot of love to the "Jesus dubbed" series, which you can see here at Youtube. Points
out that it's funnier than most sketch shows, and suggest that the BBC are cowards who wouldn't make
it. "I don't understand why people don't think internet media is exciting."

13:50 Linehan agrees with Clay Shirky, and says that the internet has revealed that everyone wants to be
creative, and they don't necessarily want to be creative to make money.

13:46: Graham Linehan and Jon Ronson are animated...

Graham Linehan and Jon Ronson

13:45: Nerd love for Twitter...

Ronson: "Twitter is turning the internet lovely."

Linehan: "The internet used to be like hanging out in a bad area at night, you walk over to a nice lady and
get mugged by pop-ups. And then Twitter came along and it just sorted things out very easily. For instance
the mad bastard problem is fixed by the block button. And the fear of the block button means that people
are very polite."

12:41: In an unexpected twist, it turns out that Graham Linehan is being interviewed by Jon Ronson, who
hopefully will get the hapless comedy writer to elaborate and magnetism, and his evangelical Christianity.

13:36: So we're back for the penultimate session, featuring the creator of Father Ted and The IT
Crowd, Graham Linehan. There is, possibly, a live video stream above, but it's been up and down today
faster than a kangaroo on a spring, so... well, just don't moan at me.

121 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
13:29: Before we get under way with Graham Linehan in a couple of minutes, I'm sad to say that Benoit
Mandelbrot, the father of fractals,passed away yesterday at the age of 85. He was a legendary figure in
Mathematics, and his name will be remembered for probably as long as humans can still count.

13:27: Well I'm back after a frantic lunch and a couple of fly-by interviews for podcasts and things. As
always, drinks, snacks, and hugs gratefully received at the blogging table on the rear platform.

12:35: Right, time for lunch - we'll be back at half one with Graham Linehan!

12:33: Minchin: "When you're an empiricist you almost end up fetishizing good logic and good information,
but I have to come back to 'what's the harm'"

12:26: Fry: "If there are creators, it's evident that they are as capricious, mean spirited, (insert long stream
of adjectives) as we are." (Sorry, it's very hard transcribing Stephen Fry in full flow!)

12:24: Fry talks briefly about secularism with reference to atheism, suggesting more emphasis should be
placed on the former, and by inference freedom of religion and the separation of church and state,

12:22: Fry: "I was accused of being rude to the Pope, of being xenophobic... by the Daily Mail."

12:20: A couple of photos for you, of Tim Minchin...

122 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
...and Stephen Fry.

12:18: Minchin: "It's almost as if there's nothing behind the language. It's just the language." Extremely
true, terms like 'energy' or 'boosting' are often meaningless.

12:18: Fry observes that the fascinating thing about quackery is the way that it appropriates science. The
invention of galvanization, discovery of radium, etc., each resulted in an explosion of associated woo.

12:15:Minchin: "Belief is so wrapped up in language, you can't separate the belief from the language, like
the word 'healing' or 'energy'."

12:13: I'm wondering if it's possible for Fry to speak for more than five minutes without breaking into a
definition. Although to be fair, every one is fascinating.

12:12: Fry: "It's such an insult to what the sense of nature is to have no sense of wonderment towards
it." It's a comment that echoes a theme repeated often this weekend, that belief in magic and quackery
cheapen nature.

12:11: Minchin: "Science is a very humble approach."

123 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
12:09: Fry: "We're not rationalists, the crucial thing is to be empirical. Let's test it. Constructing good tests
is one of the most creative things people can do."

12:08: Uri Geller is getting a lot of mentions at this conference, which is unfortunate because I spent most
of yesterday spelling his name 'Gellar'.

12:06: So somewhat delayed, Tim Minchin is interviewing Stephen Fry, via pre-recorded video.

11:49: While I try and catch up with whatever's going on, I'd just like to plug the Geek Calendar, which is
available to buy on the floor above us. It's a calendar of leading British geeks, and:

A celebration of British nerdishness in all its glory. A project about geeks, by geeks, in support of geeks,
raising money for the UK Libel Reform campaign.

Also check out their website.

11:41: Here's a shot of the last panel session...

Panel on skepticism and new new

media.

...and a shot of Melinda Gebbie, interviewed by Rebecca Watson.

124 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
11:35: The last session seems to have spawned a poll about my face:http://twtpoll.com/4trfxs

11:32: And I'm back, sorry about that, I'll bring a clone next year. Rebecca Watson is now
interviewing Melinda Gebbie, who is talking about the male-oriented nature of pornography.

10:20: Right then, I have to dash to the green room to get a microphone and then you have basically an
hour of nothing very interesting happening. Enjoy! Back at about 11:20 I guess.

10:17: Grothe (paraphrasing): "There are hundreds of skeptics groups in the States, and a proliferation of
regional conferences." Similarly now in the UK we have dozens of groups, and regional conferences like
QED springing up to complement TAM.

10:09: A quick warning, coming up at 10:40 there's a panel of skepticism and the media. Unfortunately, I'm
on it, and people might notice if I'm typing on a laptop on stage, so from about 10:30 I'll be disappearing
for 40 minutes or so.

10:08: DJ Grothe suggests a good definition of skepticism is "ordinary common sense." I'm not sure I'm
entirely convinced with that definition.

10:06: Here's DJ Grothe, explaining that skepticism is more than just a hobby or a club, but a wider cause.

125 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
And a shot of the 950-strong audience.

The 950-strong audience at TAM

London

10:01: DJ Grothe is on stage for his talk. The President of JREF announces that the proceeds from TAM
London will be used to fund skepticism in the UK.

More of that in the coming weeks, but the big question for me will be how well JREF can build relationships
with the grassroots community here in the UK - the thriving ecosystem of podcasts, blogs, Skeptics in the
Pub groups, other event organizers, etc, that Ben Goldacre paid tribute to in his acceptance speech
yesterday.

09:57: While the Q&A heads into the more arcane areas of quantum mechanics, here are a couple of
photos from last night's awards. First up, winner of the grassroots skepticism award Rhys Morgan:

126 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Rhys Morgan collect his award from
James Randi.

And another shot of The Amazing (not to mention indefatigable) Randi:

09:52: Marcus Chown taking questions from the audience now. The current question is somebody who
basically just wants to give their opinion to the audience, and can barely be arsed to add a rising inflection.

09:51: Chown now rocking out to Bowie on stage. Apologies for the slightly slow updates - I've been writing
a brief talk I'm giving in an hour or so plugging the Guardian Science Blogs, as well as searching for a vacant
loo and trying to coax the gods of the internet out to play.

09:38: Chown "1% of the static on your TV comes from radiation left over from the Big Bang." Another
4.2% is generated by Simon Cowell.

09:36:AbrasiveShrub on Twitter: It's so early and I need coffee and OH GOD THE WINE WAS A
TERRIBLE IDEA. #TAMLondon Yes. Please bring caffeine and headache pills to the blogging table.

09:34: Chown quotes the "most profound statement on time" by George W. Bush: "I think we can all agree
the past is over."

127 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
09:30: Chown: "The concept of past, present and future appear in none of our fundamental
understandings of reality" - they're all relative to travel. Fortunately we don't move very fast, so we don't
see the mind-bending effects of this.

09:29: Chown: "The laws of physics do not rule out time travel." However, you have to move through
space, and you can't go back in time to before you built your time machine.

09:24:Chown: "You age more slowly on the ground floor of a building than on the top floor." This is
because gravity is stronger nearer the Earth, and we can even measure the difference in the flow of time
between different steps on a staircase. TO THE BASEMENT!

09:22: Speaking of photos, here's a beautiful photo of Tim Minchin's performance last night, in which he
sang an array of new material for us. And swore a bit.

09:18: And here's Chown in front of the aforementioned picture, courtesy of Kelly Haddow:

Marcus Chown stands in front of a

photo of the Sun taken at night, through the Earth.

128 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
09:12: Marcus is going to list his "top ten most bonkers things about the universe", controversially starting
from 10, and counting down to 1. Number 10 is a picture of the Sun taken down through the Earth at night,
achieved by imaging neutrinos passing through the Earth. That is pretty bonkers.

09:08: Marcus Chown arrives on stage for our first talk, which may be streamed live above. We're treated
to a rendition of Rocket Man, sadly not performed by Chown.

09:03: So here we are, Richard Wiseman kicks off Day Two at the ungodly hour of nine in the morning. Pass
the aspirin please.

Marcus Chown will be next up, followed by DJ Grothe. I'm told we'll have some live video commencing
shortly, so I'll just sort that out for you now.

Saturday: Day One

17:44: And that's it (no, really this time!) for Day 1! Tim Minchin is debuting Storm later, but that's the end
of my eight hours of live blogging exploits for today. See you all at 9am tomorrow! I'm off to the bar.

17:39: The second award is a grassroots award, and it goes to, brilliantly, 15-year-old Rhys Morgan. You
can read more about his story here. He receives a standing ovation from the crowd, and deserves it.

17:38: Ben's speech remarks on the massive growth of the skeptical movements, declaring that "the nerds
shall inherit the Earth."

17:37: So, the first award is for Outstanding Achievement in Skepticism in the Professional Category, which
goes to a sadly absent Ben Goldacre, who nonetheless comes to us via video.

17:34: Oh no wait, I lied! There are a couple of awards to hand out.

17:33: And that's it for Day 1! Tim Minchin is debuting Storm later, but that's the end of my eight hours of
live blogging exploits for today. See you all at 9am tomorrow! I'm off to the bar.

17:26: We're at the Q&A now.

Ince: "Have you ever had anything on the JREF Million Dollar challenge where you've thought, 'you know
what, actually this might be a little tricky'?"

Randi: "Nope."

17:24: Carmen D'Cruz tweets: "W00t! Andy Nyman just kissed me on the cheek!" Nobody has kissed
me on any of my four cheeks yet. Pah.

17:21: Speaking of which, here's a video of Randi debunking Popoff, well worth a watch.

17:19: Randi: Last year, Peter Popoff made over a million dollars year more than he was making when
Randi exposed him on the Johnny Carson show. "Where is the justice?"

17:16: One of the great things about watching Randi is how visibly moved he is by the plight of the victims
he seeks to protect in some small way. He recalls how he overheard a women telling her friend that she
had to give all the money she had to an evangelist, or else God might not notice. Sheesh.

17:12: Randi describes his exposure of Peter Popoff, a psychic famously caught receiving information from
his wife via a concealed ear-piece. He makes the comment that aside from deceiving them, the psychic
appeared to actually despise some of their audience.

129 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
17:04: On the subject of Joe Power, it's worth reading this excellent blog-post by Michael Marshall,
exploring some of his extraordinary behaviour in recent years.

17:02: Ince on psychic Joe Power recalls his friend was thrown out for giggling uncontrollably after Power
opened the gig with the gambit, "I'm getting a Dave."

17:00: Randi: "Education doesn't necessarily make you smart. It just makes you educated."

16:59: DrShroom asks: "Is it me, or does Randi look like Darwin in profile? #TAMLondon" I reckon so,
but I'm also short-sighted and roughly three miles from the stage.

16:56: Two personal points. 1) It astonishes me how Uri Gellar maintained his spoon-bending fame for so
long. 2) It is unspeakably annoying that Youtube videos are 480 pixels wide, and the Guardian column
width is 460 pixels. Fuuuu....

16:51: Randi is recalling his famous appearance with Gellar on Johnny Carson's The Tonight Show. Here's a
Youtube video of it...

16:46: Ince ponders the futility of Randi's work in the face of the continued (and annoying) presence of
people like Uri Gellar. Randi points to the steady stream of little victories - some people are persuaded,
and the important thing is to inform people, to expose them to alternative ways of looking at something.

16:44: Randi relates an early experience as a youngster, of exposing a psychic who was doing 'billet-
reading', using the one-ahead trick. There's a nice Wikipedia article about it here.

16:40: Ince asks Randi when he realized that the art of illusion could be used by charlatans. Randi relates
the story of a 'healing' preacher, and understanding the psychological tricks involved from his own
experience as an illusionist.

16:37: Photo time! Kelly Haddow has a couple of great shots of Ince interviewing Randi, with Wiseman
creeping into the frame:

And now for some excellent eyebrow work:

130 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
16:33: And we're off, Robin Ince going for hard questioning, throwing scrutiny on Randi's appearance on
Happy Days. "Henry Winkler was a joy," Randi reports.

16:24: We're having a quick tea break here after another marathon session, up next Robin
Ince introduces James Randi, which promises to be a treat. I'm guessing it'll be starting around half past, as
the last panel overran slightly.

15:57: Allen Green: "When cats complain, they complain of herding skeptics." Singh continues by pointing
out that the more coordination skeptics have, the bigger impact we can have.

15:55: Le Canard Noir tweets: "Other little known fact. Florence Nightingale also invented the pub
quiz and the catflap. #tamlondon" It's true. (Legal note: it's not true.)

15:51: Harris: Politicians respond to media embarrassment. Making them look ridiculous can be a good
way of effecting policy change.

15:48: A considerable amount of people here from Europe, almost out-numbering the Brits, which is
brilliant.

15:45: Simon Singh has announced a new skeptical campaign, which will be run by Alan Henness and Maria
McLachlan. The details are here (warning, hastily formatted churnalism!): The Nightingale Collaboration.

15:32: Simon Singh up now, fresh from his libel victory. He's keen to push activism projects in the next
year, and cites the success of campaigns against homeopathy and Miracle Mineral Solutions in 2010.

15:30: Allen Green suggests that alternative med and psychics, etc., can be low-hanging fruit. While I'm not
sure I agree with that, I would emphasize his wider point, that skepticism can be applied to much wider
policy areas (sexual health, economics, politics, social policy and so on).

15:28: I can't let a mention of David Tredinnick pass without recycling the last article I wrote about him:

Tredinnick's passion for "healthcare research" landed him in trouble during the expenses scandal last year,
in which he was caught claiming £700 for "computer software and consultancy to investigate whether
astrology can be linked to alternative medicine."

131 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Protesting his innocence, he explained: "There are aspects of this such as plant cycles, the tides, that are
linked to the moon. That's a fact of life, and there is a school of thought that says the moon affects other
things as well. It's easy to make fun of me over this but the fact is there is a link."

Indeed, Tredinnick's views go further. In a Commons debate on Complementary and Alternative Medicine
last year he made the extraordinary claim that "... at certain phases of the moon there are more accidents.
Surgeons will not operate because blood clotting is not effective." One wonders if Tredinnick wraps himself
in wool and plaster at every full moon, lest a stray paper cut cause his blood to drain completely from his
body.

Tredinnick is also a passionate advocate of homeopathy, and has filed a string of Early Day Motions in an
effort to raise support for magical homeopathic remedies in parliament. EDMs are listed with their
signatories on the internet, providing a handy guide to the identity of the more credulous and ill-informed
MPs.

15:25: David Allen Green: "Skeptical blogging is in an extraordinarily good state." I'd tend to agree,
obviously. He cites the ability of skeptics to link to sources, something which seems to be beyond many
mainstream publications, and also highlights the speed of blogging, something I'm brutally aware of today.

15:25: David Allen Green (the blogger formerly known as Jack of Kent) up now, getting cheers for refusing
to inflict Powerpoint on people, and defaming Uri Gellar.

15:23: Some more photos, the first is Tracey Brown...

...and then Evan Harris.

132 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Erstwhile MP Evan Harris.

15:20: Harris, MP-in-waiting, has a pop at David Tredinnick, an MP who as far as I can tell represents the
constituency of Narnia, and believes that moon phases can affect surgery.

15:15 Evan Harris is up, making the point that changing policy is different from convincing the public, or
arguing with opponents. Which is a good point.

15:12: So the panel consists of Evan Harris, David Allen Green, andSimon Singh, which is an interesting if
rather libel-heavy line-up. I've been for a quick pee, but I couldn't find a shower, so floor it was. Stay away
from the blogging table for a bit. Actually no, bring drinks and snacks.

15:04: It is hygienic to pee in the shower.

15:03: A word of warning. General panels about blogging and activism tend to annoy me because they're
often either inane or wrong. But this one seems to have a decent bunch of people, so we'll see.

15:02: So, here's a panel about skeptical activism, introduced by Sense About Science director Tracey
Brown. Sense About Science are of course the organization who have orchestrated and funded recent
campaigns against homeopathy like 10:23, or at least they are if you're a deluded nitwit.

15:00:Via James O'Malley of The Pod Delusion comes this interview with James Randi!

14:52: All this talk about Christians is leading some on Twitter to question why there isn't more talk about
Islam so far. This of course satisfiesRobbins' Law of Religious Discussion: As any discussion about problems
with Christianity continues, the likelihood of someone demanding people talk about Islam as well
approaches 100%.
133 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
I get this a lot, and I have two standard responses which Kirby echoes. Firstly, this is a Christian nation,
hence we discuss it more. Secondly, and a related point, problems with Islam have very little impact on my
life in the UK.

14:50: The Christian Party have an innovative approach to tackling climate change, according to Kirby -
they plan to reinstate the observance of the Sunday Sabbath. The resulting drop in people doing stuff will
of course drop carbon emissions massively.

14:49: More photos courtesy of official TAM photographer Kelly Haddow, ofPaula Kirby mid-talk...

...and Karen James from earlier.

14:44: Kirby's talk is turning into a dissection of the Christian Party manifesto, which is indeed a bit crazy,
as I discovered when I looked at their science policy earlier in the year:

The Christian Party has an innovative approach to policy-making that can be summed up as "what does the
Bible say?" This is taken to such extremes that all taxes – VAT, income tax, corporation tax, and so on –
would be set at 20%, apparently because this is what the pharaohs of Egypt were told to set their taxes at
in Genesis.
134 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Abortion is obviously a big fat no, while the party adopts a zero-tolerance policy on drug abuse (though
not, presumably, on the drug that is in Communion wine). Having teased the Jeremy Clarkson vote with
promises of raising the speed limit to 90mph, the Christian Party brushes it aside with a surprising focus on
the environment.

In terms of education, under the Christian Party children would be taught chastity until marriage, and
creationism would be restored to its rightful place in the national curriculum. If that all sounds good to you,
then you're probably reading the wrong column. Shoo!

14:36: According to Kirby, The Christian Party believe that "the fact that we're not allowed to hit children
any more is the root of all crime in society." Which may or may not be true, but I don't really see them as
representing mainstream Christianity.

14:30: Time for our next speaker, Paula Kirby, who is involved with theRichard Dawkins Foundation I
believe. In a surreal twist, the slides have now been replaced with live video of her talk, of the sort you may
or may not to be able to see in the 'live stream'.

I've finally been given a schedule by a helpful photographer, so I can tell you that we have a panel of
"Skeptical Activism" at 15:05, and then Robin Ince will be interviewing James Randi at quarter past four.

14:27 Live Video: People have been asking what's going on with the live video. It seems that some talks will
be shown live, but not all of them - I've not been told which unfortunately - the video is all done by TAM
London, not us.

14:18: Karen James is just up doing a pitch for the Beagle Project, which aims to rebuild Darwin's old ship,
sail it around the world, and disprove evolution for good. Or at least two of those things. You can see the
project website here.

14:10: Another quick reminder, you can follow the conference on Twitter using the hashtag
#tamlondon, and you can harrass me at@mjrobbins.

14:05: Nyman: Don't check your phone in a theatre, even discretely, the glow is hugely obvious. That
means you. YOU.

14:02: Q&A begins, and someone has asked the Lottery question! "What were you trying to achieve?" The
answer from Nyman is interesting (and this is a bit cobbled together from a longer quote):

"If Channel 4 can get 12 headlines a year, it ticks a box for them. On the one hand you have to
acknowledge your audience's intelligence, and then it becomes 'well what do you want them to go away
and think it is'."

As near as I can interpret Nyman's full reply, their aim was just to leave the audience thinking, but also to
generate a bit of a 'buzz'. Which worked I guess.

13:59: Nyman: "Theatre's expensive and a lot of the time it's really fucking boring, so I want them to go
away not feeling that."

13:57: More from the mythical Green Room, which I've learned is guarded by a Minotaur with the head of
Brian Blessed. Here are Jonathan Ross...

135 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
...and Tim Minchin!

13:53: Much of Wiseman's interview with Nyman is photo-and-anecdote based, which makes it a little
tricky to blog here. So here's a a photo of the guys:

136 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Richard Wiseman interviewing Andy
Nyman

13:51: So Nyman is one of the brains behind Derren Brown's various tricks and shenanigans, currently
describing how audiences need to be left to make up their own minds about these sorts of things. Wonder
if anyone will ask about the Lottery stunt...

13:45: More controversy, this time about the food laid on, which was so good I went across the road
to Marks and Spencer. Sym Roe tweets: "Pathetic food at the Hilton for #TAMLondon if your veggie.
Really not impressed at all, are you listening @TAMLondon?" Yes we are, and you'll have no food at
all if you don't start using your apostrophes correctly.

13:42: So we're underway, and first up we have actor and magician Andy Nyman, who's being interviewed
by our host Richard Wiseman.

13:38: I've been told by the powers-that-be that we need more balance to offset the general skeptical and
atheist tone of this live blog, so here's a picture of the Pope.

The Pope, from Adam Rutherford's

slides.

137 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
13:30: While we wait, here's a photo of fellow Guardian writer Adam Rutherford, mid-flow. It is literally the
most flattering photo I could find (after I deleted all the better ones from Kelly Haddow's hard drive).

Ladies' favourite Adam Rutherford.

13:20: While I've not found the semi-mythical green room, others have. Via Karen James comes this shot of
Daily Mail nemesis Jonathon Ross, Evan Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Link.

13:15: Apparently things are resuming at half past one, although I've no idea who's speaking as the
schedule is blank. Apparently Randi is giving a press conference now about nothing in particular, and I've
resorted to Tweeting to try and find out where the green room is, as so far my uber-pass has been
defeated by the fact that The Hilton is basically like a labyrinth, but with fewer monsters.

12:30: LUNCH! My pass says "Access All Areas" on it, so I may try to find some interesting stuff. Or maybe
just some food.

138 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 12:24: Via UKSkeptic comes this picture of a slide explaining Adam Rutherford's philosophy. Coming
towards lunch now...

12:22: Rutherford (paraphrasing): I challenge all of you to find an Alpha course and do it. You'll find out
more about Christianity works, and see what happens in a church when people go out of the way to
convert you. You'll see how people succumb to the message. But more than that, since it's an open forum,
you have the opportunity to challenge people.

12:18: Rutherford: Is Alpha homophobic? "Alpha welcomes all comers, but homosexuals can be healed..."

12:17: Dr Evan Harris: One of Adam Rutherford's slides at #tamlondon http://bit.ly/6iZH9s Rolling in
the aisles.

12:14: Rutherford on Alpha's leader: I'm suspicious of people in power, doubley suspicious when they're
nice, and tripley (sic) suspicious when they have jam on their crotch.

12:11: Rutherford says that Alpha is converting one brand of Christian into another... essentially targeting
the sort of disenfranchised Christians who don't really do church any more, particularly in the educated
middle classes.

12:10: Rutherford is clearly reading the live blog on stage "The Lord of the Rings is Boring. It's basically just
walking." Amen!

12:06: So Adam Rutherford spent some time on the Christian 'Alpha' course as part of a journalistic
investigation. Upon joining he was apparently sent two books - The Lord of the Rings, and The Chronicles
of Narnia. Coincidentally, both have been turned into crap films in recent years.

Yes that's right people, I said LotR was crap.

12:04 Glasgow Skeptics in the Pub have sent their representative Ian Scottto the blogging table with a large
Dairy Milk bar. More people need to follow their example. Drinks especially appreciated.

12:00 Adam Rutherford in response to Alpha's "Is this it?" slogan: "Yes this IS it and it's fucking awesome!"

11:58: Bizarrely the hall are now reciting the Lord's Prayer. Someone calls out that they've seen the light.
I'm near the door.

11:54: Rutherford: A survey by Pew Research showed that atheists and agnostics are amusingly the most
knowledgeable group of people about religion. I've Googled it for you...

11:51: Adam Rutherford is up... "I'm going to talk to you about Jesus."Mixed response...

11:50: Last word to Cory Doctorow: "If we give John Lennon another 20 years of copyright, how many new
records will we get?"

11:48: Doctorow in action... is it just me, or has he got a bit of an Elvis Costello thing going on there?

139 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Cory Doctorow in action.

11:43: The first big controversy of the day concerns the lack of a morning coffee break. After talks by
Blackmore, Dawkins and Doctorow, we still haveAdam Rutherford to go... rebellion is in the air.

11:37: Question: What's the evidence that people who consume pirated material then go on to buy more
stuff?

Doctorow's reply, in a nutshell, is that it's complicated - people might share stuff with their friends, who
may then buy it, and so on.

Doctorow says that the primary consideration should be what is the cost for the anti-piracy measures
proposed. Also claims piracy is 'progressive', in that it has a bigger effect on the bigger/richer acts. Bit of a
bald assertion maybe?

11:34: Doctorow: "DRM is like saying you can't take your book off an ikea bookshelf & put it on the MFI
one you also own"

In other news, the toilets at The Hilton are amazing, I could live in them.

11:30: A Q&A has broken out, the first question is a bit arcane, something about ACT. Don't have time to
Google...

11:28: Doctorow (paraphrasing): "Youtube produces 20 hours of video footage per minute, why should it
be shut down to protect people producing 20 hours of footage per summer." To be fair, most of Youtube is
full of tedious adolescents.

11:21: Jon Treadway: "I want to know where I can buy a cheap knock off version of @doctorow's
suit. It appears to be made of barcodes or sheet music #TAMLondon" Any ideas?

11:16: Doctorow (paraphrasing): "We know for a fact that we can have a copyright system for fashion
design which doesn't ban copying." In China "where the world's factories are," 'real' branded clothes are
often made in the same factories as rip-offs.

11:14: "Yesterday's pirates are today's admirals" - Doctorow competing with Dawkins now for sound-bite
of the day.

11:07: Kelly Haddow has dropped more pictures on my desk! SeeRichard Dawkins...

140 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Richard Dawkins believes evolution
should be at the core of education.

...and Richard Wiseman.

Richard Wiseman, the host of TAM

London. Look into his eyes.. not around his eyes...

11:06: Cory Doctorow is talking about copyright, and declares that not all artists can expect to have a
comfortable middle-class income - that's never happened in history. Instead, the question is how we
support the best among them.

11:00: We have live video! See above.

10:55: Next up, Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing and tech writing fame, and boy did he start loud. I'm about
three miles from the stage, and I'm wincing.

10:52: So that's the end of Richard Dawkins' talk. While I'm not sure I agree completely with his theme that
evolution should be at the core of general education, it was an interesting hook from which to talk about
the way that evolution crops up in an array of subjects, from science to engineering, literature,
mathematics, medicine, computing and many others. Dawkins argues that evolution is, in essence, a multi-
disciplinary subject.

141 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
10:48: Dawkins: "How much of what we know about life is peculiar to this particular sample [on
Earth]." Dawkins believes wherever there is life, there will be genetics, as Darwinian evolution is the only
process capable of generating a diversity of life. "Is sex obligatory?"

10:43: Dawkins: "If more of our political masters understood statistics, the world would be a better
place." Amen.

10:41: Dawkins: "Evolution is becoming a part of Computer Science," due mainly to our quest to
understand and deal with the information contained in our DNA. It also turns out that Sewell Wright may
have once erased a blackboard with a guinea-pig, although that might be apocryphal.

10:38: I'm trying to get you a picture of Dawkins in-talk, but basically every inanimate object in the world
hates me today.

10:37: A nice analogy from Richard Dawkins explaining the evolution of flight. In aircraft engineering, there
is a trade-off between stability and maneuverability, with more agile craft requiring more computing
power to manage their less-stable flight. Similarly, among species of pterodactyls we can see the same
trade-offs. THIS IS PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (not really).

10:31: Quote I missed via Karen James on Twitter: "Dawks: if we held hands with our mothers, and
they with theirs, back to our common ancestor with chimps, the chain would only be ~200miles.
*goosebumps*"

10:29: Dawkins: "The evolutionary perspective makes you realize that it's a sheer accident that we able to
set up a morality that is so human-centred." (the accident being that the intermediate species between
ourselves and other animals happen to be extinct).

10:27: I'm pretty sure Dawkins just called my cousin a chimp. Missed key words I think, thanks to a noisy
film crew next to me.

10:21: The annoying-former MP Evan Harris on Twitter: "Richard Dawkins at #tamlondon refers to
'Science is the new sex' slogan. *Ripple of joy from assembled geeks*"

10:18: Continuing the Classics theme, Richard Dawkins points out that evolution is very much the story of
who we are. As the Classics tell us about recent history, evolution tells us the stories of our million-times-
great grandparents, who apparently did a lot of swimming.

10:15: Dawkins: "Science is the poetry of reality." He's good. Somebody should get him a literary agent, I
reckon he'd make a good writer.

10:14: Comrade Gimpy on Twitter: "Hope the champagne skeptics at #tamlondon are having fun. It
must be nice to afford £200 tickets at a time when many are facing unemployment"

Which raises the question: why do I have no champagne? Who is hiding all the champagne? Anyone who
brings champagne to the blogging table at the back of the room gets a free mention. I'm not proud.

10:10: The theme of Dawkins' talk is that he believes evolution as a subject should be elevated to the same
status in education that the classics used to have. Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments...

10:07: Now the Gods of lighting are pissed at me too. Fortunately the dark isn't a problem as I can tchou
tpey.

10:02: Dawkins: "My subject, evolution, is under threat - especially in America. ... I want to come out
fighting."

142 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
10:01: Richard Wiseman introduces Richard Dawkins by explaining through the magic of maths why
Teletubbies are evil. Frankly, I think we all knew.

09:58: Susan Blackmore's talk has just finished. Apologies for not bringing more of it to you, but the Gods
of the internet have not been smiling on me this morning (nor for that matter the Gods of the Circle Line).
It was a fascinating talk though, exploring how the desperation to show that psychic powers are real can
lead to bias and hostility to those who demonstrate otherwise. Next up, Richard Dawkins.

09:56: A quick reminder, you can follow the conference on Twitter using the hashtag #tamlondon,
and you can harrass me at@mjrobbins.

09:55:

Our first speaker of the day has been Susan Blackmore, who has been speaking about her long quest to
prove that paranormal phenomena are real, a quest which went so well that she's now a prominent
skeptic.

Susan Blackmore, erstwhile believer

in the paranormal, but not happily a skeptic (or we'd be witnessing Randi's first fight of the day).

09:50: So, a brief recap now the internet is alive again. Richard Wisemanis hosting the conference. First
up, James Randi gave a feisty introductory talk in which he declared his health problems of last year were
behind him, and that he was ready to basically fight any and all quacks and charlatans unlucky enough to
share a room with him. His strength is in his glorious beard, which you can see below courtesy of Kelly
Haddow.

143 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 James Randi ready for action.

09:43: Welcome back for Day One of The Amazing Meeting! Unfortunately most of the Amazing seems to
have been used up for the meeting itself, leaving very little Amazing left for the wireless internet access, so
apologies for the slightly late start. I'll try and catch up with the last 40 mins now...

Friday: Build-up

17:48: So after a long and sweaty trip I've arrived at the Hilton, a building which looks like God got pissed
off with a Rubix Cube, and smashed it into Edgeware Road in a bit of a sulk. The beer is nearly a fiver, but it
comes with a tray of bar snacks, so I can pretend I've had a bargain dinner.

15:37: Probably the most riveting story of the day has been science comedian Dean Burnett's coach
trip from Cardiff to London. His latest update: "Still on the coach on the way to #TAMLondon.
Nothing to report." It's edge-of-the-seat stuff.

14:47: After a tense hour or so in which almost two people were following the action on
Twitter, Michael Marshall has apparently escaped the clutches of the Scientologists, describing them
as"well-meaning but a bit vacuous."

14:41 PLUG: Little Atoms, a radio show about science and skepticism at Resonance FM (and online) will
have a TAM special featuring interviews with some of the stars at TAM London, and Josie Long and Neil
Dennyinterviewing Alan Moore. It's this Friday evening at seven o'clock.

And remember, you can plug your events/blogs or frankly pretty much anything here in exchange for beer
and snacks delivered to the media table this weekend, because I have no shame.

12:41: Killing time before registration, Michael Marshall has wandered into Scientology center on
Tottenham Court Road. Heseems impressed: "This propaganda film is fucking amazing. L Ron as,
essentially, Biggles meets Indiana Jones."

Fiver says he joins.

10:41: Jon Treadway asks "Will you be writing about pigeons and their effect on penises?" Way ahead of
you. Basically, your common-or-garden pigeon is fine, the spiritual ones less so.

09:02 ANNOUNCEMENT:

144 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
"You can pick up your badge for #TAMLondon on Fri 2:30-8:30PM at the venue. Please go on Friday if you
can to avoid queues on Saturday."

Those in the know suggest this is quite a good idea as queues on the morning of the first day tend to be
biblical in proportion.

08:55: From @goddessgeek comes a snap of James Randiarriving at the hotel yesterday, with what I
think is quite a Terry Pratchett vibe about him - or is that just the awesome hat?

00:37: @rebeccawatson reports that the TAM London pub quiz was won by these Norwegians, who
walk home £100 richer after successfully navigating a 'sperm round'. Me neither.

00:10: Welcome to TAM London 2010!

I'm proud to host the official live blog from The Amazing Meeting: London, Britain's biggest and most
entertainingest celebration of science and critical thinking here in the heart of London this weekend;
featuring Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Stephen Fry, Robin Ince, Alan Moore, PZ Myers, Cory Doctorow,
Tim Minchin, Richard Wiseman, Simon Singh, and a host of other witty, sparkling and rational-minded
stars.

Over the weekend I'll be bringing you almost 18 hours of live blogging, with textual commentary from
me, audio clip updates from The Pod Delusion's James O'Malley, photos from Kelly Haddow and others, as
well as keeping an eye on Twitter (the hashtag is #tamlondon, and I'm @mjrobbins).

So if you're not at the conference this weekend, sit back and enjoy the coverage. And if you are, bear in
mind that people who bring beer or snacks to the media table will get a mention here, and possibly a blog
pimp.

It's not corruption if we're all open about it.

2010/10/15 EXQUISITE LIFE: EUROSCIENCE IS

HERE TO HELP BOTH SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
The crisis that has hit Europe is fresh in our minds - not only an economic crisis but also, more importantly,
a crisis of institutions. The impact of monetary union has been vanishly small compared to the expectations
it created. Now Europe understands it cannot compete with China, India or even the United States in terms
of industrial production. Europe wants to become a knowledge-driven economy. The EU has long ago
foreseen this and has established many funding schemes for innovation, one of which is the Framework
Programme run by the Commission.

145 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Currently we are running the seventh edition of the programme, FP7, which covers almost every scientific
topic from space science to medical research. In addition, FP7 supports the Science in Society theme,
which despite its relatively small budget has high hopes. It aims at bringing science closer to society, and
vice versa - which is not as easy as it sounds.

Young people all around Europe have grown to dislike science in recent years, despite all the new gadgets
in their lives. Ignorance of science and stereotypes of scientists are widespread. Worse, many people of all
ages, educational level and income associate science science fiction. It is all rockets and extraterrestrials to
them. No wonder they think science is a waste of time and money.

The SiS theme tries to explore the roots of this problematic relationship and to improve understanding on
both sides. It does this primarily by funding innovative activities on science communication, science
education and the policy on science dissemination. In this way, the EU emulates the Greek, French and
German philosophers of the past. It brings openness to something that looks hermetic, creates dialogue
instead of an inward-looking science monologue.

A new call for proposals for the SiS theme was published in July and focuses on these priorities:

Action Line Indicative Budget

1: A more dynamic governance of the science and society relationship EUR 16.4 million

2: Strengthening Potential, broadening horizons EUR 14 million

3: Science and Society Communicate EUR 1.5 million

4: Strategic Activities EUR 0.6 million

There are several subtopics in each line, the headings are somewhat obscure and the Commission’s source
documents are famously hard to decipher. But don’t worry - if science engagement with a European
dimension interests you, Euroscience is here to help! You can contact us and we can help you find
partners, and develop your proposal. We might even join in.

Dr. Michael S. Arvanitis

Posted by Michael Arvanitis at 14:35:41

2010/10/15 EXQUISITE LIFE: NICK CLEGG

ANNOUNCES £150M "STUDENT PREMIUM" FOR
POOR STUDENTS
Here's what Nick Clegg said about supporting poor university students with a "student premium" today:

"We must make sure that bright but poor children grow up believing that a university education is not out
of reach. So we are looking now at what can be done to remove the obstacles to aspiration that hold back
bright boys and girls from deprived backgrounds. Alongside reforms to Higher Education, we are proposing
to provide a form of “student premium” for the least advantaged students, representing a commitment of
at least £150 million a year by the end of the spending review period. Our goal is clear: to tear down the

146 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
barriers that prevent poorer young adults from entering university. We will be consulting with universities
and students on the most effective way of achieving that goal."

2010/10/16 GUARDIAN SCIENCE LETTER:

CUTS IN DEFENCE RESEARCH WON'T HELP SCIENCE
The academics who write to suggest that defence R&D should be cut to spend more on civilian science
(Letters, 13 October) are misguided.

First, most of the £2bn the MoD spends on "R&D" is not research in the sense that academics would
understand. The Royal United Services Institute's 2006 publication Decline and Fall of Defence
Research pointed out that the actual technical research funded by the MoD is tiny (less than 1% of the
total defence budget), and the remainder that is labelled R&D is, in reality, technical advice and paper
studies to support the equipment programme.

Second, what research science the MoD does fund often has a civilian benefit. For example research on
vaccines for diseases which are too rare or too dangerous for drug companies to take an interest in. Or the
new Orion laser facility at AWE, which will be available for scientists to perform high-energy physics
experiments with peaceful applications.

Third, the MoD spends a good proportion of its small technical research budget within UK academia,
sponsoring projects and students, which is surely to the public good.

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, a huge number of major scientific advances have their roots
in military programmes. The academics who wrote to you on computers connected to the internet or
travel by jet aircraft would not have been able to do so without the invention of these tools by gifted
scientists working within national defence science programmes.

The rejection of nuclear weapons (a not unreasonable position) by the academics has clouded their ability
to look objectively at the relationship between the MoD and science. Frankly, if the MoD stopped doing
research tomorrow it would have no discernible impact upon the current crisis in UKresearch funding.

Dr Neil Young

Bristol

2010/10/16 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG

MARTIN: THE NIGHTINGALE COLLABORATION

147 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
A new skeptical campaign launched at TAM London by Simon Singh, Alan Henness and Maria MacLachlan
aims to put the screws on alternative medicine. (Guest announcement by Alan Henness and Maria
MacLachlan)

Misinformation about complementary and alternative therapies is rife

on the Internet, in newspapers and magazines and on the high street

and this misinformation misleads the public. It is particularly

important that the public have accurate information about healthcare

so they can make informed choices.

This misleading information won't disappear by itself: it needs to be

challenged.

Complaints about chiropractors' website claims, made by Alan Henness,

Simon Perry and others, have shown that it is possible to confront and

highlight misleading information, have it withdrawn and those

responsible held to account.

The Nightingale Collaboration will continue this work and will share

knowledge and best practice with others and give them support and

encouragement.

Florence Nightingale is well known for her commitment to using robust

evidence to decide what worked in improving healthcare. As the first

woman to be elected to the Royal Statistical Society and on the

centenary of her death in 1910, the Nightingale Collaboration

acknowledges her great legacy.

Aims

The Nightingale Collaboration will work to improve the protection of

the public by ensuring claims made about complementary and alternative

therapies are not misleading. We will do this by:

challenging misleading claims made by practitioners on their websites,

in adverts and in their promotional and sales materials and subjecting

these to scrutiny by the appropriate regulatory bodies;

striving to ensure that organisations representing complementary and

alternative practitioners have robust codes of conduct for their

148 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
members that protect the public and that these are rigorously

enforced.

Methods

There are several different methods of working that will be used to

achieve the Aims:

A. Nightingale Collaboration Campaigns: conducted by Nightingale

Collaboration personnel, gathering information, planning and executing

the campaign, with the support of volunteers where required. This type

of campaign would clearly be carried out in the name of the

Nightingale Collaboration.

B. Associated Campaigns: we will collaborate with volunteers on

campaigns by providing advice and authorisation to ensure maximum

impact and liklihood of success. These campaigns will be publicised as

being conducted in association with the Nightingale Collaboration.

C. The Nightingale Collaboration will make tools and resources

available so that others can pursue their own individual campaigns

with maximum effect. These campaigns will be entirely separate from

the Nightingale Collaboration.

Volunteer roles

There will be differing roles for volunteers, allowing for varying

levels of commitment. Volunteers will be able to contribute according

to their skills and whatever time commitment suits them.

It will be very much a collaborative effort.

Possible tasks include:

Locating misleading information, whether that is on the

Internet, in national or local press, in local clinics, etc.

Gathering this misleading information in a legal and intelligent manner.

Coordinating local campaigns.

Submitting complaints to the appropriate regulatory bodies.

Volunteer training

149 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The Nightingale Collaboration will provide training for key volunteers

to help them in their roles.

Tools and resources

There will be Nightingale Collaboration tools, resources, advice and

guidance available to volunteers, some of which will also be publicly

available to anyone who wants to act wholly independently.

Code of Conduct

There will be a code of conduct on how we obtain information and how

we deal with others so we maintain the moral high ground and keep

within the law. All personnel and volunteers will be required to abide

by it.

Experts

We will have access to various experts who can advise us on legal

matters and supply authoritative advice on scientific evidence to use

in our campaigns.

The Nightingale Collaboration

The Nightingale Collaboration must be seen to be ethical, legal,

authoritative, thorough and tenacious. This is so that we attract good

volunteers and so that the Nightingale Collaboration is taken

seriously — providers of misinformation must be clearly aware that we

mean business. We must gain a reputation for effectiveness.

More information will be released on the website over the coming weeks

and months. To be kept informed, send an email to

info@nightingale-collaboration.org or follow @NightingaleC on Twitter.

150 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/17 GIMPYBLOG: TAM LONDON
AND CHAMPAGNE SKEPTICS - THE HAUTE
BOURGEOISIE OF CRITICAL THINKING
'The Amazing Meeting', a JREF event, is currently taking place in London (#TAMLondon on twitter). It may
be amazing, it is also £200. I agree with Skeptobot's criticism from earlier this year that it is too expensive,
insular and divisive.

http://www.skeptobot.com/2010/05/skeptical-look-at-tamlondon.html

I made a throw away comment yesterday on twitter that TAM is all about 'Champagne Skepticism' - a
backslapping exercise where by the well off pay an organisation to tell them how important their activism
is. Grassroots activists unable to afford the fee aren't important enough to be considered. There are wider
concerns over TAM though.

Tickets for TAM London did not sell out, suggesting that in the Champagne Skeptic market demand has
peaked. This means that to expand JREF and TAM must seek new markets. They are clearly intending to
do this, it has been announced that profits from TAM London will got to JREF UK and fund skeptical
activisim within Britain.

This could be bad news for the grassroots skeptical movement. JREF's motives may be pure, the pursuit of
skepticism rather than personal profit, but they have the potential to own UK skepticism. JREF are rich,
international and have the ability to attract big names to high priced events. Their fund raising machinery
could easily steal speakers and audiences from the Skeptics in the Pub movement, where the free flow of
ideas costs no more than a few pounds at the door. Well paying and well behaved audiences may appeal
more to the stars of skepticism and their rich supporters. It is worth noting that high profile media figures
such as Jonathan Ross are present at TAM London, whereas reports of their attendence at Skeptics in the
Pub meetings are scarce.

It may even be that Skeptics in the Pub (SitP), currently a fairly loose collective, some of whose organisers
are involved with TAM London, finds it easier to become an offshoot of JREF/TAM than compete for
market share. SitP has thus far successfully managed to create a regional flavour to its meetings, with
groups in Northern England collaborating on QEDcon and Glasgow and Edinburgh Skeptics producing a
three week series of (cheap and free) events at the Edinburgh Fringe. Centralisation under JREF/TAM
would risk destroying this.

While we do not yet know JREF/TAM's long term plans in the UK, I am of the opinion that attempts by any
one organisation to own the organisation of skepticism and its surrounding culture should be resisted.

More of my musings on similar subjects below, there may be a theme developing:

http://gimpyblog.posterous.com/skeptics-in-the-coffee-shop
http://gimpyblog.posterous.com/gatekeepers-and-the-guardian-say-no-to-bloggi
Oct 17, 2010 beagleldn said...
Somewhat childish inverse snobbery name calling by someone who has sour grapes because they're missing out
and now has a bizarre exaggerated fear of JREF taking over the sceptics movement (and then, presumably, the
world?) TAM and non-TAM sceptic events are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. Indeed, TAM is fueling
the grassroots movement and is likely to lead to more sceptics in the pin meetings and attendance. On top of

151 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
that, I believe most of the talks are streamed free online and blogged about so everyone can access them. It's
not like decisions are being taken by "the elite" that will affect scepticism for the next year. It's a way of
people being informed, educated, entertained, being reminded to be balanced ans diplomatic, and raising funds
for the further promotion of scepticism. So please get off your high horse and let's get on with the scepticism.
Oct 17, 2010 landtimforgot said...
You would have to pay me good money to attend an event with Wossie there.
Oct 17, 2010 Ian said...
I was considering going to TAM, but I could neither afford the entry fee or the time off work. TAM, as nice as
it seems to be, seems to be organized top-down, whereas the SITP events I've been to seem much more
grassroots and bottom-up. For me, this makes SITP much more important, as it's a form of inclusive direct
contact. The various events at TAM all seem spectacular fun, but at the same time they don't seem to be
fulfilling one of the primary purposes of skepticism, namely to educate and inform.
The last SITP event I went to had a speaker from CERN, and drew an audience of both skeptics and the
science loving general public. It educated, informed, and introduced people to skepticism in a way that
something like TAM can't.
Oct 17, 2010 GlasgowSkeptics said...
I am at TAM right now, but I do agree with a lot of what you say. Just to say that Skeptics on the Fringe was
entirely Edinburgh's work. I tagged along with them a few days, but Glasgow really had nothing to do with it.
However, another example that would help make your point (whilst also being a shameless self-plug), Glasgow IS
organising an all day event for November 21. We're running from 10am-10pm, seven speakers, and two buffets,
for £27. (skepticsinthepalace.com if you're interested)
Keep up the good work.
Oct 17, 2010 ScepticLetters said...
What do you think is the best route whereby TAM and SiTP can co-exist peacefully?
Can SiTP ever hope to attract the big-name international speakers that TAM can afford, for example?
Oct 17, 2010 gimpyblog said...
beagleldn: it's not sour grapes, I'm more a conscientious objector to the idea that skepticism should be
organised from the top around £200 events.
theangelremiel: I agree that SitP is considerably more inclusive than TAM, and is a much better model to
promote skepticism. However, if you read my 'skeptics in the coffee shop' post you'll see that I think it does
come with other problems, even if it is a good thing in its own right.
ScepticLetters: Why would SitP want to attract the big-name international speakers? That shouldn't be what it
is about, I see it as more rooted in local communities and cultures than part of the international skeptical
lecture circuit. This is partly why I think it would be a bad thing were TAM/JREF to associate itself with SitP.
The former is very top down and controlling, yet it is using many of the same individuals who either talk at or
run SitP with added media glitz. And as we see from the attendance and ticket sales, it's current target
market is too small to sustain it in the long term, the obvious way out is to capture the SitP audience.
Oct 17, 2010 Barbara A. Drescher said...
"Their fund raising machinery could easily steal speakers and audiences from the Skeptics in the Pub
movement..."
HOW? By bringing people to the UK who wouldn't ordinarily be there? By getting people fired up so that they
want to attend SITP?
There are so assumptions to be swallowed here (e.g., like the assumption that grassroots = poor and well-off
TAM-goer = activist) that the whole post is poorly reasoned to the point of ridiculous.
The coinage of "champagne skepticism" also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of money, budgets,
and the price of events. TAM is a fundraiser, but it also costs a lot to produce. Nobody is getting rich throwing
conventions and nobody is "stealing speakers and audiences".
Oct 17, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Barbara A. Drescher: I think you're America, so might not appreciate the geographical nature and transport
infrastructure of the UK, such that it would cost somebody from outside the South of England up to several
times the cost of the tickets to travel to and stay in London.
The phrase 'champagne skepticism' was intended as a play on 'champagne socialist' - an epithet used against
those who preach equality from the comfort of their drawing room. I intended to pass comment on the ironies
inherent in the promotion of skeptical activism, intended to improve society as a whole, to an exclusive
audience.
But I think you nail the source of my concerns in your final paragraph, TAM risks sucking up resources from
SitP, which is organised on a regional basis, to its central event. There simply aren't enough skeptics willing to

152 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
pay £200 to fill TAM, so they have to search for audiences elsewhere to raise funds, and SitP is an obvious
place to look.
Oct 17, 2010 Barbara A. Drescher said...
??
I understand fully your intended use of the term "champagne skepticism".
I understand that the venue of London is expensive.
Your comment makes it very clear that you do not understand my comment and that serves to underscore my
point. Your argument relies on assumptions which have no basis in reality.
Rather than restate my previous comment, I'll just refer back to it.
Oct 17, 2010 hapsci said...
I have just set up a SITP in Aberdeen (+500 miles away from London). We set it up because we are free to do
what we wish with the group. We are running it as more as a meeting event rather than an 'activist' meeting
and this is the only event of its kind in the area which isn't affiliated with the University.
We are worried that we will struggle to get speakers as we are so far away (Edinburgh is 2.5 hours away) and I
think gimpyblogs concerns are well justified. We are not looking for big speakers all the time - we want people
in our area that have an interest to step up and give talks but in the interest of creating a wider interest (and
for our enjoyment) it would be nice to have some larger names.
Also - on another note, I think the TAM meet is quite exclusive - it would have cost me well above £400 to
attend the event and with no bursaries/sponsorships offered it makes it somewhat inaccessible to me as a
research student. Conferences generally offer bursaries and sponsorship for travellers who would struggle to
attend - why can't TAM stretch for this?
Oct 17, 2010 eddedmondson said...
"There simply aren't enough skeptics willing to pay £200 to fill TAM"
TAM London 1 sold out ridiculously fast. There were substantial complaints from those that couldn't attend,
despite the organisers engaging in research to try to assess the attendance and aiming to fit that.
Now you're complaining that it *didn't* sell out? This seems like an unfair complaint. They may not have found a
venue that exactly fitted the number of people that wanted to afford tickets at a certain price, but it was
bigger this year, even if it was more expensive, and opening it to more people in that way is surely better than
having a smaller cheaper event that would have sold out in seconds rather than hours as in year 1.
They can't please everyone, and for sure I have feedback to give this year, but it was a well-organised event
that brought lots of people together, and I'm sure grass-roots skepticism will benefit from it, even if not
everyone that wanted to could attend.
Oct 17, 2010 drunkenmadman said...
A thoughtprovoking post for sure, and relates something that has come up here in the surroundings of TAM
Australia 2010. The opening of ticket sales was accompanied by two contrasting schools of commentary:
1. "this is awesome I have my tickets LOLOL"
2. "I can't afford those tickets. WTF? This sucks."
TAMOZ, of course, sold out quickly. The second ticket allocation is gone too. There was a lot of talk (from me
included) about the venue size after it sold out so fast, but what are we to do? Funds are not infinite, and
scaling from 600 people to 1200+ was just not practical for the organising team. It may well have trimmed the
price to have used greater scale, but it just couldn't happen. There are well known issues in scaling up with
events like this. Maybe next time the scale and budget will allow cheaper ticketing and a more inclusive
experience as a result, who knows?
Still, I don't think issues around skeptical conventions are cause for pessimism about the future of skepticism
as a whole. No-one owns the process of skepticism. There's no patent, trademark or copyright on its use. The
grassroots are still the grassroots. Today we started Sydney Drinking Skeptically. Not because of any
resistance to the larger SiTP that already exists here, but because there's a demand for it and because a few
people wanted it
"Champagne Skepticism", as a phrase, though? LOVE IT.
Oct 17, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Barbara A. Drescher: sorry, I don't think I've understood your point at all. I don't think my argument rests at
all on the assumption 'that grassroots = poor and well-off TAM-goer = activist', it's the assumption that some
in the grassroots can afford TAM, others cannot, and it's the former that are treated to pep talks about their
importance.
eddedmondson: I'm not complaining it didn't sell out, that was an observation not a criticisim. The point is that
because it didn't sell out, if it wasnt to expand (as it does) it will have to move into new markets, and my
concern is that SitP is an obvious market to move into. As SitP is radically different from TAM/JREF in its
organisation, being more bottom up than top down, TAM would risk destroying the regional nature of SitP

153 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
through centralisation. And if you think London based centralistion is fine, then may I refer you to hapsci's
comment from the North East of Scotland,
On a wider Scottish issue, as anyone, even an English person, who has spent time in Scotland will tell you that
its culture and traditions are distinct from those in other parts of Britain (which are often unique themselves).
Scotland has it's own parliament, education and legal system, quite distinct from anything in England, therefore
any English based campaign tends not to consider relevance north of the border. I even saw the sorry sight of
many England based skeptical organisations ignoring events such as 'Skeptics on the Fringe', despite this being
based at the worlds most international cultural event - the Edinburgh Festival.
drunkenmadman: If the convention circuit stays separate from more grassroots stuff then that's more or less
fine by me, I would still consider the exclusivity of conventions a big problem though given the de facto
rejection of outreach considerations.
Oct 17, 2010 drunkenmadman said...
So TAM London had no student bursaries at all?
TAMOZ at least had a few, which took care of at least part of that segment. Didn't really help with low-income
earners and/or the unemployed/disadvantaged segments, or simply those on a tight budget who underestimated
the ticket cost.
It's something that conventions ought to look at. Skepticism is a diverse movement and I can't help but feel
that conferences ought to reflect that diversity.
It's a reality of event planning, though, that you can't please everyone unless you make it completely free. That
ain't going to happen without deep-pockets external sponsorship and I for one am bored with being labelled "in
the pocket of big pharma/oil/corporation/government/illuminati". Imagine how that would end up if we had a
corporate-sponsored free-ticket TAM?
Oct 17, 2010 gimpyblog said...
drunkenmadman: 'Skeptics on the Fringe' was more or less free for a three week programme of events.
Granted the traditions of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe are that it is a showcase for new cultural ideas and
that getting people in through the door is the measure of success, not the money made (although there are
other events at a vast range of prices also at the Festival).
There was already corporate sponsorship of TAM London, and people advertising other skeptical events were
given a little row for making the paying sponsors cross.
Oct 17, 2010 eddedmondson said...
Fair point. Actually a concern I had there was that there was a substantial European-wide contingent there, yet
funds were all being used in UK skepticism, which seemed a little unfair.
Oct 17, 2010 drunkenmadman said...
Ah.
We have a fringe happening at TAMOZ, too. - http://www.meetup.com/TAMAustralia/ I've dropped a bit of
cash into that myself, but I anticipate getting most of it back. Hopefully. I'm not charging at the door, but a
lot of my cost is refundable deposit(s).
I wasn't aware of TAMLondon's corporate sponsorship. Come to think of it, no idea if TAMOZ has corp.
sponsorship. If it's sponsored by Merck there's going to be trouble. As I said I'm fed up of being called a big
pharma shill as it is ;-)
Oct 18, 2010 Thyrisis said...
I know this point has to some extent been made already above but surely SitP and TAM can be complimentary?
I think there are several "goals" to skepticism and the various events in which it features can achieve different
things. In particular I think it's good for skepticism, as it grows, for it to have a "premium" event which is
simply more likely to be noticed by decision makers / formers and to the media, and therefore be more broadly
influential, which it one of those goals, in my opinion. SitP, on the other hand, is perfect for local activism and
grassroots involvement. If we are to achieve the goal of reaching the broader general public, we need both and
this increasingly makes the idea of everyone with a skeptical interest being able to attend one big meeting seem
quite impractical. And no, I didn't go to TAM London, though I would have liked to.
Oct 18, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Thyrisis: you're making my point for me! Why should 'premium' events be considered the best way of getting
noticed by decision makers, etc (which is actually untrue anyway in recent history of UK skepticism)? To have
skeptical influence controlled by TAM/JREF is not a future i want to see.
Oct 18, 2010 dellybean said...
I simply view skeptic meetings like gigs. Bands play their tours, like speakers tour SiTPs (cheaper, more
frequent & more personal). Then bands also play festivals, like speakers talking at larger events e.g. TAM (more
expensive, less frequent & people who have never heard of particular bands/speakers become exposed to them
for the first time - which they probably wouldn't have otherwise - and so listen to different perspectives and

154 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
broaden their opinions/skepticism as a result). Some music fans can't afford festivals and so go to the more
affordable tour gigs - it's not a competition and it certainly isn't a rich-poor divide strategy suggesting poorer
fans are less important. The tours of bands are not damaged by them having performed at festivals but are
further promoted, potentially gaining more fans. Also new fans, who like their music, then open further
interests into similar bands of similar genre. I feel this is the same for skeptic speakers and people who attend
the SiTPs. I do not believe TAM will be detrimental to SiTPs, more like it encourages people to attend them
whether they were at TAM or not. I love SiTPs for their personal touch, you have more chance to chat with the
speaker, more time to do that as well, they create a nice litttle community for locals and provide that regular
skeptic fix. TAM on the other hand is very "conference", less personal and does not always guarantee you the
opportunity to chat with speakers due to the sheer volume of attendees. TAM does, however, have such a
diversity of speakers all at once, gives you chance to meet other people from all over the world and is probably
one of the greatest ambitions for most speakers to actually get the invite to give their talk there. TAM and
SiTPs are separate entities but, I believe, they compliment each other as a collective for skeptics, rather than
TAM posing a threat in relation to expanding to a wider audience - besides, surely we're potentially the same
audience anyway? It's not always about the "big names" either, it's about critical thinking and the sharing of
ideas - whoever may express them.
Oct 18, 2010 mattlodder said...
1) Running large conferences costs, on average, £150 - £200 per head just to break even. I know, because I
organise one every year and attend several others. TAM is expensive, but it's not a profiteering rip-off. I can't
afford a Ferrari, but that's because I can't afford what Ferraris cost, not because Ferraris are overpriced!
For the record, I had to book a meeting room for 15 people in London the other day; it was £1000 for a single,
small room. If we want to have a big conference with internationally-recognised guests (and I'm genuinely
baffled as to why you think we shouldn't!), it will cost £200 per head, or thereabouts.
2) Even though I only attend infrequently. I have seen most of the "sceptical celebs" at SitP in Holborn - Singh,
Goldacre, Gorman, Minchin, Harris etc. etc. have all been at events at which they were not speaking. Where you
get the line "reports of their attendence at Skeptics in the Pub meetings are scarce" from, I have no idea?
Oct 18, 2010 Sean Ellis said...
I was at TAM London this weekend, and had a great time, with some reservations. Gimpy, I understand your
concerns, even if I don't think that the situation is anywhere near as black (or black-and-white) as you are
painting it.
I will reserve my judgement on the best model for a skeptical conference until after QEDcon in Manchester in
February. This sounds much more like the kind of grass-roots, bottom-up event that you are advocating.
Oct 18, 2010 eddedmondson said...
Another point - DJ Grothe at TAM made it clear that the JREF had a fairly specific mission which didn't
encompass all of skepticism, and that other organisations covered those areas. I don't think there's any reason
to think they will dominate UK skepticism.
Oct 18, 2010 GlasgowSkeptics said...
I think that there are a few things here.
Firstly, the costs of actually travelling (and hence any geographic "unfairness") is minimal. I got a return flight
on British airways for £80, I know from experience that it'd be possible to get one for half that. The main
cost is finding somewhere to stay, which can also be done cheaply. I stayed at a travelodge five minutes' walk
from the hotel; Sunday night cost me £19, and all three nights cost me £150.
So, I probably spent as much on TAM itself as I did on the travel to TAM. But the thing is, this is the only
holiday I take each year. To draw an analogy, at my old school, the bursary system seemed to be set up more so
that families didn't have to sell their 3rd car, rather than letting truly disadvantaged children in, at least in
cases.
I can see the point you made to Adam Rutherford about how only groups who could afford the £200 to speak to
him could request for him to talk. But, at the same time, it doesn't stand up. When I started up Glasgow
Skeptics less than a year ago, I tweeted at him if he'd give a talk. "You're asking me to drink and talk in a pub?
This I can do." As it turned out, it was actually more the geography that saw stopped this from happening.
However... Running a skeptics in the pub can be costly regardless, and I find the idea that not being able to
afford TAM London will significantly disadvantage a group a bit odd. Sure, they might not get a speaker FIRST,
but presumably once a speaker has conveyed a willingness to appear at a SITP, the groups can display the
initiative to ask them along themselves.
Starting up, the cost of transporting speakers can massively outweigh the donations. In Glasgow when Ashley
gave the first talk, he cost £33, and we took in £40, though we did have a rather extraordinary high turnout
for that first meeting. But, e.g. Dundee got two people along, and (here going down a route I didn't mean to), if
we didn't have the Glasgow funds there to lend support, I'd imagine that Dundee would have collapsed right

155 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
there and then.
As it turns out, the support lent to Dundee by a larger organisation allowed it to go through that period where
costs are extravagant compared to returns. But people running Skeptics in the Pub groups NEED to be able to
cope with some financial discomfort and so, because sometimes, events will be more expensive that had been
planned.
I'd have to ask what your alternative to TAM would be. I should perhaps clarify what I meant earlier when I
said that I agreed. Being a bit of a lefty, and *recognising* that at a lower price, less well-off people would be
able to attend. But I also know that when you're doing conferences as large as TAM, the venues are going to be
few, prestigious and therefore expensive, and likewise the food. I don't like the fact that TAM London is based
in an environment as pompy and expensive as the Hilton Metropole... but I also recognise that there's very little
that can actually be done by TAM, February or the JREF to remedy this, short of holding it in a field.
How would you fix the TAM model? How would you attract the same high calibre of speakers that people are
currently being priced out of, whilst keeping it cheap? Is QED cheap enough? (I still have the hotel problem).
Are the speakers of a high enough quality? Where would you compromise?
If you fancy a chat, glasgowskeptics@gmail.com is where you'll find me.
Oct 18, 2010 gimpyblog said...
GlasgowSkeptics: thanks for the explanation. I think the costs issue is creating a distraction here, one I fully
acknowlege I started, from the core question. Which is that should skepticism be organised around the loose
afifliation of the sitp model, or the top down TAM design? Obviously I have my opinions on this but I would like
them to be considered as part of a dialogue, rather than a debate.
With respect to Adam Rutherford, twitter wasn't the best medium to get my point across. I know he is easy to
contact and willing to respond, my point was intended to be that TAM makes face to face contact easier, which
is always a great boon to a succesful interaction - shame about the price tag.
Oct 18, 2010 hapsci said...
GlasgowSkeptics: I think introducing some kind of bursaries or sponsorship would remove some of the cost
issues associated with TAM and make it more accessible - as I said in my earlier comment. As for SITP - a
willingness to loose £40/£50 on paying a speaker to attend a talk is far more reasonable than finding
£400/£500 of disposible income to attend a talk such as TAM.
Oct 18, 2010 chrisgerrard said...
Do you know something we don't? Do you know what JREF is planning? I just don't see how JREF and SITP
won't co-exist. They do in the US and they will here. I co-organise Cambridge SITP and I simply don't see how
an increasingly active JREF in the UK would reduce attendances locally or be otherwise detrimental. I have
been to both UK TAMs and the proliferation of SITPs this year I would put largely down to TAM2009.
Certainly my involvement in Cambridge SITP was a direct result of it.
Yes it's expensive. I probably spent £500 all in. It's a fund-raiser and putting it on would have been pricey. I'm
happy (and able) to pay and don't really see the harm in it, even if it excludes others by its cost. Many of the
speakers would come to SITPs so you could see them there for a couple of quid (but I do take your point about
the difficulties with SITPs).
A central question for me is how should we organise ourselves to best effect, and here I think there is room
for debate. Many seem to be laissez faire about lack of organisation, almost as if it's a virtue. Meanwhile people
die or get hurt or ripped off. Here I think a good national debate is needed, and maybe more leadership from
the likes of JREF (or Sense about Science or...) would bear fruit. However, as you point out, many recent
skeptical successes have been at the grassroots - take 1023 and Rhys Morgan for two. But that serves to show
how the grassroots is so important that I can't see the likes of JREF trying to do anything other than support
it.
Oct 18, 2010 gimpyblog said...
chirsgerrard: A fund-raiser for what though? Tracy King, TAM London organiser, was indicating yesterday that
it paid for/will be used for the 'Storm' film she was involved in. I think there should be a wider debate about
how money should be best raised and spent to further the skeptical cause.
On the broad subject of JREF plans, I have no idea what they are - but I think there is no harm in debating the
role they could play. Particularly as the examples you cite for grassroots activism were organised far from
London, where JREF will be based.
When you were at TAM, how much advertising did you see for regional events? For QEDcon? Anything about
'Skpetics on the Fringe'? Glasgow sitp's 'skeptics in the palace'? Any plugging of 'Skeptics with a K'?
Oct 18, 2010 gimpyblog said...
ahh I think I misremembered the storm thing from Tracy King: Tweet here
http://twitter.com/tkingdoll/status/27716428910
I think that's more open to interpretation that I initally recalled. Would disputes it's 'grassroots' though.

156 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Oct 19, 2010 Martin Robbins said...
Two things strike me about this article at first glance. Firstly, the amount of vitriol being directed at the
hundreds of grassroots skeptics who attended the conference and are now being demonized as rich "champagne
skeptics" because they saved up for several months to go to a big event. Secondly, just how out-of-touch you
seem to be with what's actually going on now in UK skepticism, or indeed skepticism elsewhere in the world.
What really astonishes me is what I can only (if maybe a tad harshly) describe as the paranoia that this post
and some of your subsequent comments and tweets seem to suffer from. It's as if you're now so fixated on the
'danger' of JREF and TAM (though oddly not of e.g. QEDCon or SITP, or Singh's Nightingale project) that
you're clutching at anything to try and prove that these fears are real. In the process, you're constructing a
narrative that at best has very little to do with reality, and at worst is degenerates into the sort of false
accusation directed at Tracy King above, a pretty nasty accusation, incidentally.
Which isn't to say that there aren't genuine criticisms to make about TAM - I made several myself, and I think
bigger grassroots exposure and a broader fringe at the conference venue with satellite talks could only be a
good thing - much of this though depends on being able to get those people organized, and with the conference
only in its second year, and moving to a much larger venue this year, it's only natural that these things take a
few goes to get well-established. It's also worth pointing out that the event was clearly understaffed this year.
But let's look at your post. I've dealt with the "champagne skeptics" tag, which is an insult to the very same
grassroots skeptics you claim to stick up for. You then make an odd comment about tickets not selling out,
which ignores the fact that a) they very nearly did, and b) the venue was something like twice the size of last
years. But where it really gets odd is with the observation: "This means that to expand JREF and TAM must
seek new markets."
It's as if you believe that these are megalomaniac big business whose sole aim is to expand and conquer. It
doesn't seem to even cross your mind that the motivation of people like Grothe, Randi (who almost broke down
in tears on stage when questioned about a child he couldn't save from the clutches of an evangelical 'healer') et
al, might have more to do with wanting to support and promote skepticism around the world than wishing to
somehow conquer it.
Continuing the theme, you go on to make the comment that "attempts by any one organisation to own the
organisation of skepticism and its surrounding culture should be resisted." What attempts are you talking
about? Who are these mysterious elites trying to 'own the organisation of skepticism', in the UK or anywhere
else? Do you really think this is what's happening in the United States, where JREF has been established for 14
years and where Grothe himself talked proudly of the thriving and growing ecosystem of hundreds of SITPs,
regional conferences, and skeptical groups, many of whom benefit from their involvement with TAM and JREF
in that country? Has JREF conquered skepticism in the US Gimpy? Is it even trying to?
This next bit is worth quoting in full:
"JREF are rich, international and have the ability to attract big names to high priced events. Their fund raising
machinery could easily steal speakers and audiences from the Skeptics in the Pub movement, where the free
flow of ideas costs no more than a few pounds at the door. Well paying and well behaved audiences may appeal
more to the stars of skepticism and their rich supporters."
Leaving aside the dubious definition of 'rich', and the obvious and fundamental contradiction that if JREF can
attract big names, and that could mean stealing speakers from SITP, then you're implying that SITPs can
attract big speakers too; this seems to be a daft statement to make about both the speakers and the
audiences.
Please explain to me, how on Earth does having one TAM in London in October, and one QEDCon in Manchester
in February, in any way steal audiences from the 30-odd local events happening every month all through the
year?! And how do annual events costing £100-200 dollars in any way stop people from going to other monthly
events costing a couple of quid through-out the year? Do you think I'm going to not do any more SITPs this
year because I did a panel at TAM?
In fact the complete opposite has happened - because I was at TAM, and could meet grassroots skeptics from
around the country and beyond, I'm now in the process of organizing tours of skeptics groups in Scotland and
Ireland next year. Adam Rutherford, who did a full talk of TAM, pointed out to you on Twitter that he was
happy to do talks. Simon Singh has been busy with libel etc., but is a huge SITP supporter particularly behind
the scenes. Tim Minchin, Robin Ince, Richard Wiseman, and other celebs there have regularly turned out at
SITPs, and Tim plugged my last talk in Leicester. Cory Doctorow took advantage of being in London to give a
talk a few days before at Westminster Skeptics, Susan Blackmore has given talks previously, Rebecca Watson
is touring the country doing them, and I could go on and on but you get the picture.
The internal competition between SITPs is probably far greater than any outside competition from TAM,
especially with groups as densely packed as they are around London now, and yet still they're finding ever more
speakers and audience members. Often through events like TAM.

157 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The way you talk about speakers is pretty much a smear too. It's as if you think people are out doing talks
because they make a lot of money for it. They don't. I've lined up talks in Manchester, Leicester, Bristol,
Winchester, London, Dublin, Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Swansea, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeed, and Liverpool, and
offered to do more in Milton Keynes, High Wycombe and Ealing once those are up and running. It's exhausting.
It means traveling hour up there after work, and getting back again for work the next morning, or taking annual
leave, and I do it for no money, just the price of my train ticket. I do it because I care, because I enjoy it,
because I think SITP is a brilliant and valuable movement, and because I want to make a difference; and most
other speakers do it for similar reasons.
(Of course, at some point it makes no sense to keep doing the same talk to a small audience; if you can e.g. go
and talk to a thousand Mums instead of a couple of dozen skeptics, then that's a much more valuable use of
energy. But then that's good too - SITP shouldn't be dominated by the same old faces and 'big' names, it
should be a thriving place for new people and new ideas to come forward.)
You ask: "When you were at TAM, how much advertising did you see for regional events?"
TAM London 2010 has already resulted in at least two new SITPs being set up, and countless speaking
arrangements and podcast interviews being arranged. Skeptics with a K recorded an episode there, The Pod
Delusion interviewed DJ Grothe and Randi himself, Little Atoms recorded a range of high profile interviews,
Glasgow Skeptics were able to heavily promote Skeptics in a Palace, and the guys were able to chat to people
like myself and Chris French and some of the big names who congregated in the bar to drum up support and
promotion and speakers. The amount of podcasters there was unbelievable - at one point I gave two interviews
just walking down the stairs from lunch back to my desk on the second day, one to a podcaster from Norway.
(It's true that there was a bit of friction between TAM and QEDCon, but as someone who counts organizers
from both conferences as good friends, that's more to do with misunderstandings than anything particularly
sinister. Oh, and Skeptics on the Fringe wasn't advertised because it's already happened, and to my knowledge
it's not running again next year, although you'd have to speak to Keir about that.)
And that's what JREF generally seek to achieve. Their aim is to support grassroots skepticism, they do so in
the US, and they plan to invest the proceeds of TAM London in a similar way here, as was announced. We'll see
how the money is spent in the next few years, and I'm sure people will have their own views on the best
projects to support, but it's a positive thing that they're here, because it allows those skeptics in the UK with
more ambitious plans to get them off the ground. Projects like 10:23, or Nightingale, or Skeptics on the Fringe,
setting up a new skeptical conference or workshop, require considerable investment and often financial risk, and
having an organization that can support even some of those projects is a positive step forward if you want to
see skeptics achieve bigger things. Unless - as I sometimes suspect, your criticism isn't really about TAM and
JREF, but a fundamental objection to the idea of organized skepticism in general.
Of course, if you'd attended you'd know a bit more about this activity. Similarly, if you actually spoke to
skeptics in the UK, or got involved with any skeptical projects based in the UK, you'd have a better idea of how
things like SITP actually work. But you don't, and that's what I struggle to understand most of all about your
attitude. You direct this... well abuse really... at people you've never spoken to, make sweeping assertions about
groups you've never met or been involved with. I asked you on Twitter how many people you'd actually spoken to
at JREF, TAM, SITP, the various regional groups and conferences and so on before writing this article, but you
haven't answered. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable towards you, but I'm guessing it's very few, if any.
Which is sad, because maybe you wouldn't have such a distorted, fearful view of this stuff if you would actually
take the time to meet and chat with people in a positive way, and find out more about what's going on in the real
world instead of sitting at your keyboard scrutinizing random out-of-context Tweets and comments for any sign
of something that reinforces these fears
That would be a much more effective way of engaging with people than this, in which you slur not just JREF and
TAM, but all of the grassroots skeptics who attended. It's not well-informed, it's not constructive, and it adds
very little to the debate about the future of skepticism in the UK, which is a shame, because it is a debate
worth having.
Oct 19, 2010 Prenna23 said...
I haven't read all the comments to this, only the original post, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything but my
first thought when reading this is "Citation Needed". The whole piece seems to be based on assumptions and
pre-suppositions.
At first you complain that "Grassroots activists unable to afford the fee aren't important enough to be
considered." but then also complain that JREF intends to kick some resources into UK skepticism, which may or
may not involve more affordable events.
The rest of your rant appears to be a collection of "coulds" and "mays" clearly designed to scaremonger with as
much evidence to back up your claims as the average party political broadcast.

158 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The icing on your cake is this: "While we do not yet know JREF/TAM's long term plans in the UK, I am of the
opinion that attempts by any one organisation to own the organisation of skepticism and its surrounding culture
should be resisted."
Here you both admit that noone knows the long terms plans of JREF but also use your crystal ball to hint at
their nefarious plans to own the organisation of skepticism (as if such a thing were possible).
From an outsider's perspective, knowing neither yourself nor anyone involved in JREF/TAM, this just seems like
a bitter dummy spit from someone who, like myself in relation to Tam Oz, couldn't afford to go.
Oct 19, 2010 thatnerdwoman said...
Just wanted to offer up my own little anecdote on what some of the Norwegians travelling to TAM last year got
out of it: We got so ridiculously motivated from our stay that five of us are organising our own skeptics'
conference in Oslo, the first of its kind in Scandinavia, and it's on in under two weeks (Very sorry for the
shameless plug). In addition to having a ticketed event (featuring Simon Singh, Rebecca Watson and many local
entusiasts within the field) we have two days completely open to the public with panel discussions focusing on a
low participation threshold, workshop-like profile. We have no idea yet whether we are going to break even with
our budget but we managed to push the prices way below half of that of TAM London, while crossing our
fingers!
In addition to the conference some of us have started a more organised version of the skeptics in the pub in
Oslo, several fringe events are planned, a new podcast (kindly mentioned by mr. Robbins above) has seen the
light of day, etc. In short, I'm starting to have too many hobbies, I've never been organised and active/activist
like this in my entire life, and it's thanks to the inspiration gathered at TAM London 2009/2010 that we've
made it happen.
[Plus I got to take pictures with Tim Minchin. YEAH]
Oct 19, 2010 rebellionkid said...
I'd be interested in raising an analogy. I dont go to skeptical conventions because I've not been in the
movement long enough to have thought it worth while. However something I do know about is the other, far
more common type of nerd convention, anime and sci-fi conventions. Now clearly there's problems with this
analogy, but give it a chance.
There are every year a few really big really high profile conventions costing hundreds of pounds to get to (not
just in terms of tickets, but after hotels etc). They can get in really big stars and large audiences.
However, there are also far smaller meetings, both of the organised kind where someone takes over one floor
of the local waterstones for a few hours and of the informal kind where a group of maybe 20 people meet up in
machester city centre to enjoy what they do.
Now, clearly there's a question of the aim of Skepticism (policy change, science education etc etc) being very
separate from the aim of the anime and sci-fi community (community for its own sake, cultural celebration
without the need for outreach etc). And this is important, neither TAM nor SITP are, of themselves, skeptical
outreach, policy change or science education targeted at wider society. However, they can serve a second role.
It is important that the primary aim always of skepticsm is policy, education etc. Real change in the real
external world. However, on the route to this community is important. To take it back to my analogy, let us
imagine that the aim of sci-fi and anime celebration is cosplay, the creation of very accurate recreations of the
character's outfits or bodies. Now no cosplay at all is made at conventions, small or large. But they do provide
an impetus. Without a big event you've no motivation to put effort into such a construction.
Taking the analogy further, the big events are just as important as the small. Typically someone makes a
costume in a rough and ready form to take to a small meet up, then will go home and with friends work on and
improve it so that it can be up to great standard when it comes to the big show.
I think this comparison can be made more useful. Compare the costume to some kind of real skeptical work, be
it an analysis of a piece of psudoscience, an idea for a campaign, a new piece of research that would be really
helpful for people to know about. Compare the meetings in waterstones with SITP, compare the big conventions
with TAM or QEDcon.
I'm suggesting something rather TEDish, but more multi-layered. Practical on-the-ground work is done by
individuals, small groups, talked about and amplified by SITP and other local meetings before bursting onto the
national stage via QEDcon or TAM.
In short, it's vital, and you're very correct to remind us all, that TAM and even SITP per se is not the aim or
skepticsm. But they can be very useful, it's only through such meetings that you can get the kind of community
and the kind of excitement and thrill that you need in order to get the motivation to start on a big project. You
need a party at the end of the year where you can show everyone what you've done and have people tell you how
wonderful you are so that you can put in the effort for the other 362 days.
Oct 19, 2010 zooterkin said...

159 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Re the mention of qedcon; I'm looking at that right now (http://www.qedcon.org), and it does look interesting,
with a mix of speakers I've seen and others I haven't (who I think I would like to see), I may even go. But for
me, it wouldn't be any cheaper than TAM London, and would probably cost more. The ticket price is half that of
TAM London, but travel costs would be much higher, I'd have to stay in a hotel, and lunch and refreshments are
not included in the price. Do I think qedcon is a bad idea because of that? No.
Most of the rest of what I'd say in response to the original article was much better said by Martin Robbins,
above.
Oct 19, 2010 craigfisher said...
#tamlondon : Yep. It was expensive. Would I have changed it? Probably not.
It was the first organised 'skeptics' event we have been to - and as a result, I'm now in contact with lots of
'grassroots' skeptics that I wouldn't have been before. In addition - came back fired up enough contact others
and achieve something.
Maybe those grassroots skeptics aren't "your kind of skeptics" but surely - almost by definition - there is room
for any sort of skeptic that can make a difference to the state of society? It's only by the changing of mind-
sets in all strata of society that we are going to able to make these changes.
Conferences in London are expensive to run - and not suited to all pockets or tastes. If you can't or don't want
to attend - don't.
But don't besmirch and (dare I say) insult, all those of us who want to make a difference with your view of
something that you didn't attend.
As a direct result of TAM there are at least 18 folks (including me) attempting to kick-off a SitP in Milton
Keynes -- is that grassroots enough? Will I be exploring all the information sources I can about skepticism in
the UK - yup. Will I be relying on TAM and JREF for all my information and direction -- hell, no: I'm a skeptic
and can think for myself.
Oct 19, 2010 ScepticLetters said...
Much earlier on, Gimpy wrote:
>ScepticLetters: Why would SitP want to attract the big-name international speakers?
That's what I was trying to say: SitP will attract non-celebrity speakers that wouldn't get a place at an
international conference, and TAM will attract the kind of people that SitP could never afford to fly in. There
is space for peaceful coexistence.
I entirely agree, also, that TAM is entirely too expensive, and that the price will exclude the kind of people who
will most benefit from being there.
Oct 19, 2010 jasonbstanding said...
Wasn't that expensive... if you divided it out it worked out to about £12 per session, with free lunches, coffee
and t-shirts. I enjoyed it immensely, and thought it was excellent value for money.
One of the things I got from TAM London was that the skeptic movement by and large exists to promote and
encourage critical thinking (or, the Gnu Atheism definition that PZ Myers presented which I really enjoyed),
and so any vehicle that promotes this - be it small like SitP or large like TAM - is worthwhile.
I'll readily confess that apart from one SitP meeting and a bunch of BHA comedy gigs, this was my first
mainstream skeptic gig and that you may have access to different channels of information to what I do, but it
very much seemed to me that skepticism is an idea or attitude, rather than necessarily a cohesive organisation
that anyone would be able to own or take control of.
Oct 19, 2010 gimpyblog said...
mjrobbins: I do not understand why you would think this post 'vitriol', it is mocking yes, scathing maybe, but
vitriolic no.
I'm also very unimpressed without strategy of personalising the argument by bringing as many names into your
comment as possible, you will note that I did not mention anybody by name in the original piece, nor have I
personalised the debate in the comments below.
Furthermore, you clearly have a bad faith approach to my reasoning as you make accusations that you cannot
substantiate concerning any underlying research I may have done to reach my position.
I think there needs to be a real debate about skepticism and how it operates. I do not write under the
assumption that I am correct, I merely want to put forward an argument for discussion.
That my argument has aroused such an emotional response in some neither validates, nor invalidates it, but it
does suggest that they have invested a lot personally in their position and some reflection on this might be
necessary when reading the views of others. I hope that such discussions in the future will be considered and
civilised without the need to shore up an argument by invoking third parties and inciting bystanders by public
broadcast.
Grandstanding is rarely pleasant and populism is ultimately destructive.
Oct 19, 2010 Martin Robbins said...

160 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
"I think there needs to be a real debate about skepticism and how it operates."
Then why not put forward an argument? Instead you called the audience at TAM names, suggested the
speakers were sell-outs, and accused the organizers of virtually trying to take over UK skepticism, and done so
on the basis of basically no evidence (unless you have some evidence, in which case by all means put it forward).
Be honest - how was any of that really constructive?
"I'm also very unimpressed without strategy of personalising the argument by bringing as many names into your
comment as possible, "
I can't really win on this. If I don't give examples I'll be accused of not backing up my argument. If I do give
examples, I'm accused of personalizing the debate, and that's despite the fact that in a previous comment you
specifically asked for examples of podcasters, groups, etc., that were there. Furthermore, you approached
people like Adam Rutherford on Twitter directly, and made direct comments about Tracy King above. I've also
tried to point you towards very specific people you should speak to if you want to know more about the
situation. But also, I do think this is a personal argument - TAM, JREF, QED, et al aren't faceless
organizations, they're run by very small numbers of people.
But in any case, my point stands... if you have concerns then get out and get involved and talk to people. Just cut
the name-calling!
Oct 19, 2010 Barbara A. Drescher said...
"I think there needs to be a real debate about skepticism and how it operates."
Do you mean how organizations operate? The definition of skepticism isn't what you are talking about, so I
assume you mean "how skeptical activists should promote skepticism". If so, there is discussion about this all
the time.
However, discussion is not useful at all when it is not well-reasoned. Your post is a mishmash of assumptions and
wishes, not a well-reasoned criticism.
Unless you are invited to advise an organization, the most you can do is provide feedback and make suggestions
in the hope that they agree with you and your goals. Other than this, you have no say in how they operate and
you shouldn't because you don't know what they have to deal with to accomplish their goals. You don't know
their budgets, their challenges, their needs, etc.
If you don't like what they do, then don't attend their events. If you have different goals, start your own
organization.
Regarding who shapes the culture, the movement is best served by a culture which is shaped by those qualified
to decide the best way to accomplish its goals.
Oct 19, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Barbara A, Drescher: Not sure it's helpful to dismiss counter views under the pretence of supporting
discussion as not well-reasoned just because you disagree with them . Suggesting that only those 'qualified to
decide', something I am sure you have every confidence in your ability to determine, should shape the culture is
slightly sinister. Skepticism risks becoming a cult if we are only to obey the dictats of the authorities, and this
is precisely why I'm arguing against top down thinking dominating the movement.
Oct 19, 2010 Barbara A. Drescher said...
"just because you disagree"
Again, you are mistaking opinions for facts. I said that you argument was illogical. What is and is not logical is
not a matter of opinion, so "agree" and "disagree" do no tapply.
There is absolutely nothing "sinister" about maintaining the integrity of the movement. Authority has nothing to
do with qualifications.
For someone who claims to be promoting critical thinking and rational thought (what skepticism is about), you
seem to have difficulty with those concepts yourself.
I'm done here.
Oct 19, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Barbara A. Drescher:
"There is absolutely nothing "sinister" about maintaining the integrity of the movement."
Yes there absolutely is when it means casting out those with whom you personally disagree.
Oct 20, 2010 DrCyberBob said...
I'm glad that this debate is being had, but I personally think that TAM is a good thing. I couldn't afford to go
to the event personally, but the ticket price was similar to that of a festival and significantly cheaper than that
of an average specialist conference.
Does one annual event, with an admittedly large ticket price, threaten smaller events? Rock stars don't kill local
music venues, they promote music to a wider audience and help them in the long run. I can see no reason why
this can't hold true for this community.

161 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
If anything, TAM was too small, attracting little to no attention from the popular press. Whether you agree
with that or not has a lot to do with what you believe the objectives (if any) are of skeptics. Are we out to
convert the faithful? Save the victims of psychics? Run homeopaths out of business? None of the above? I
personally don't think that we should be doing any of those things. What's important is that we provide a sense
of community, avenues for debate and the dissemination of well-grounded information. In which case, the
scatter gun approach is the way forward, a massive patchwork quilt of fringe events, big shows, pub meetings,
twitter accounts and websites, all of which make information available to people who come looking for it.
And if we're quite done here, I'm off to crack open some Moet, darling.
Oct 20, 2010 DrCyberBob said...
After reading the comments more thoroughly, a little doff of the hat to rebellionkid who made very similar
points, with a very similar analogy. Apologies, any similarity was purely accidental / a by-product of being right
:P
Oct 20, 2010 noodlemaz said...
I was refraining from commenting since I didn't actually attend TAM itself; I just hung around to soak up the
excitement and conflabs on Fri/Sat/Sun night (and went to the evening with Tim Minchin & Storm on Saturday).
So I can't comment on the structure of the conference based on my own experience, though am reading others'
views.
I cannot help but feel, gimpy, that you're being somewhat hypocritical here. Re: being 'sinister',
"there absolutely is when it means casting out those with whom you personally disagree."
You have just written a pretty alienating post about why you dislike the fact that people have spent their own
money attending this event, because you disagree with the idea and setup of such a thing, then tell a
commenter they're sinister for supporting it for their own reasons.
"Suggesting that only those 'qualified to decide', something I am sure you have every confidence in your ability
to determine, should shape the culture is slightly sinister."
This is full of unfounded paranoia, it seems to me. I have not so far heard of any reports of TAM speakers,
organisers or attendees having world skepticism domination plans, hoping to herd everyone in the same direction
doing the same things in the same ways by a certain set of rules.
You, however, dismiss a whole chunk of the movement just because it's doing things in a slightly different way
than you personally consider productive or attractive.
You can't please all of the people all of the time - I have my own reasons for not attending (money being a big
one, even though I live just up the road)... I just can't see where you're coming from here.
I want to think you have a good point to make, as you usually do, but this just feels like a combination of sour
grapes, paranoia, unusual hypocrisy and a random bad mood.
Oct 20, 2010 gimpyblog said...
noodlemaz: I didn't attend and I've not criticised the content, just the idea and implications of TAM. I
honestly can't see why people have a problem with this. I really don't mind being told I'm wrong, I can tolerate
being insulted, but the thought that critical ideas should be shut out, which is the growing implication here, is
down right destructive, and it is this idea that only those whose thoughts are approved can contribute to
debate I called 'sinister'.
Oct 20, 2010 wendypearman said...
I feel the way we handle the right of others to comment matters. Polemical style turns many of us right off.
There are several opinions that gimpy has held that I disagree with. For instance, his view on Megrahi, whom I
always believed innocent, and I supported consistently during his time in Scotland.
Whatever I agree or disagree with in gimpy's initial blog, he has the right to opinions that differ from yours
and mine, and, more importantly, he has the right to be dealt with gently.
Polemic is about war and there is a war, the ideological war against superstition and the effects that has on our
society, and every society. Save your polemic for that.
Gimpy's differences are worthy of a quick pint and a chat (without bared fists) and a possibility of reserving
differences. By coming in so heavy some of you start to look like shouting bullies..
Oct 20, 2010 trikkywoo said...
Thanks Wendy! I feel you have very neatly summed up my feelings on this particular blog. Whether you agree or
not with gimpyblog on this particular issue, the opinions stated here are perfectly valid ones which he is
entitled to hold. My understanding of skepticism, albeit somewhat rudimentary, is that we should be stimulating
intelligent debate and challenging misconceptions or misunderstandings in a productive, and hopefully
constructive manner. Surely then, that should apply to homeopathy, libel reform, politics and religion, as well as
the nature of skeptcism itself?
Gimpyblog is not the only person to voice misgivings about TAM and this debate is crucial to ensure that SitP
doesn't suffer as a consequence. Whilst it is amazing to see the gusto which individuals are lending to

162 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
extending the SitP movement as a result of TAM (one only has to look at twitter to see how enthused people
are), there are still numerous SitP groups folding, or close to it. (On this note, I sincerely hope that the
Edinburgh Skeptics on the Fringe continues, particularly as it drew in some fabulous speakers this year.) To see
TAM grow and to perceive SitP in some ways to have suffered over the year, it seems justified to be having
this debate. That's why I don't understand the vitriol levelled at gimpyblog. Not wishing to paraphrase a
famous Phil Plait TAM speech, but why are we still being dicks, not just to 'woo' but to each other? I can't help
but feel that if gimplyblog voiced this opinion at a SitP meeting, it wouldn't be greeted with the downright
dickishness on show here.
(End rant)
Oct 20, 2010 Martin Robbins said...
"...the thought that critical ideas should be shut out, which is the growing implication here, is down right
destructive, and it is this idea that only those whose thoughts are approved can contribute to debate I called
'sinister'. "
I don't think anyone is saying that critical ideas should be shut out. But you put forward your views here in a
way that you yourself admitted just was "mocking" and "scathing", calling people names and making some pretty
big and evidence-free assertions. You really can't be surprised that you got a pretty robust response. People
have disagreed with you, and they have a right to be annoyed at being called names. You can't complain about
the quality of the debate, when you started it by calling basically everyone who disagrees with you "champagne
skeptics", accusing people of trying to 'own skepticism', and styling yourself as a "heretic" on Twitter! I mean,
come on Gimpy!!
But even so, people have taken the time to talk to you, given you their e-mails, phone numbers and skype details,
and set out detailed responses with examples, as I did in the 1,800 word reply I posted above, so there has
been constructive feedback on what you said. What might be an idea is if you talk to them, take the points on
board, and do another post - a sensible, reasoned post with evidence and examples that addresses the points
people have made in response to this, and avoids name-calling and accusations. You'll get a far better response
than continuing down this path of basically digging yourself into some self-styled heretics bunker and carrying
out some sort of misguided battle against the sinister forces of elitism.
Oct 20, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Martin Robbins: I didn't call any particular person a name, I only used generalities. The only person who has
insisted on bringing as many other people as they could think of into it is you.
Now stop wrestling scarecrows and either debate the implications of a London based exclusive event acting as a
gateway to skeptical interaction or stop posting.
Oct 20, 2010 jasonbstanding said...
Relating to what trikkywoo said, I'm not convinced there's a causal link between attendances at SitP declining,
and the fact that TAM is geared around similar topic matter.
Based on my one experience at SitP, I can tell you the reason why I've not rushed back (corroborated by other
friends of mine who similarly attended once) was because of the generally smug/arrogant nature of the
presentation/discussion. Aside from that, I love the concept, and that's what attracted me to going to TAM.
If there are SitP groups folding, perhaps its because their offerings aren't engaging enough to the public
they're trying to attract? I guess it'd be up to them to figure out the "why".
Plus, I agree with DrCyberBob. Except for Moet. Laurent Perrier, all the way.
Oct 20, 2010 noodlemaz said...
I realise on re-reading my own post it comes across quite harshly; that wasn't my intention or my mood when I
wrote it so apologies for that.
I was having difficulty seeing what your point was, but your last sentence is a nice sum-up to be going on with I
think.
I had my own misgivings about such an event, mainly because of others' criticisms, that contributed to not
actually going myself.
How exclusive an event is it? Promotion wasn't as widespread as last year to avoid the severe backlash that
happened when all the tickets sold out. Attendance was just about bang-on this year, it seemed. There are no
particular qualifications required to attend - you just buy your ticket because you're interested in going. I'm
not sure how TAM qualifies as 'exclusive' really.
The thing I have a problem with is people worshipping the big skeptical names. There's admiring someone's
work and there's being a pathetic fanperson (having seen a teenage girl cry at Tim Minchin in the pub, that's
the kind of thing I'm getting at). "May I approach the stage and fist-bump you" is amusing and all, and reminds
me why I like the skeptical crowd with its good humour and friendly atmosphere, but it's hardly a decent
'question' or at all productive.

163 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
I think this is where the divide comes in, and links back to all the debates Frank Swain's talk threw up. Many of
us attend SitP not (only) for the activism side but because of our friends.
You may wish to only dedicate your free time (as a fellow science person I know it can be hard to come by) to
what you perceive as the most productive events in terms of impact, making a difference - whichever hard-to-
pin down quantifier we're talking - but that's not everyone's only motivation for attending events under the
'skepticism' banner.
In terms of it being a gateway, I spoke to a few people who didn't attend SitPs but were tempted to as a result
of going to TAM and meeting lots of people who do attend/run them.
I've told people what TAM actually is, since they'd not heard of it - as I'm sure many others have.
Lots of SitP projects and some podcast ideas have hatched since the event, which is also fantastic.
It may, in itself, be mostly a back-patting hero-worshipping exercise, but it seems to have had plenty of
positive spin-off and I think the reason so many people are having a little bit of a go, is your strange fear that
this will somehow damage SitP (and any other smaller skeptical activities?), which so far does not seem to be
supported by any evidence.
Oct 20, 2010 gimpyblog said...
noodlemaz: quick point, the event is exclusive because it is £200 - that is more money than many can afford.
Add to this the costs of travelling and you further exclude a non-London audience.
For the sake of simple argument let's say that every attendee at TAM is motivated to either start or join a
SitP group, that means this vast explosion in skeptical numbers is driven by people who can afford to go to
TAM, and who have come by their ideas via TAM. Thus TAM acts as a central facilitator of skepticism, and one
with a high entry barrier. Therefore skepticism will come to reflect the interests of TAM-goers.
Your point that many ideas have been hatched via TAM suggests that this is happening.
Oct 20, 2010 Martin Robbins said...
"either debate the implications of a London based exclusive event acting as a gateway to skeptical interaction
or stop posting."
I have. I've written a detailed, 1,800 word response to your post making a number of direct points and backing
them up with specific examples. It would be really nice to get some sort of response to those points, because I
put a lot of effort into making sure I addressed your questions in detail.
But let's recap those points again:
* I'm curious to know whether you think QED or Nightingale are a problem like JREF/TAM, and if not why not.
* I pointed out that this years event had far more tickets on sale, and still nearly sold out, challenging your
narrative that demand for large events had peaked.
* I challenged you to produce evidence that anyone was attempting to 'own the organisation of skepticism'
* I pointed out that JREF have been active in the US - where grassroots skepticism seems to be thriving - for
15 years, and challenged you to produce evidence that it has harmed or 'owned' skepticism in that country.
* I asked you to explain, or give evidence, to show how having one TAM in London in October, and one QEDCon
in Manchester, both costing hundreds of pounds to attend, would significantly draw audiences or speakers away
from the 30 or more SITP events happening every month?
* I pointed out the many speakers at TAM who also speak at or support local skeptical events around the
country, giving specific names and examples.
* You asked about the grassroots presence at TAM, and I responded with a long list of examples.
* And I suggested you get out and talk to some of the people at JREF, TAM, QED, SITP etc and actually find
out from them what they're doing.
And just to add another couple, in response to your latest comments:
* There are many, many gateways to skeptical interaction - SITP, QED, Twitter, Facebook, blogging, the media
and so on - why so stuck on TAM?
* If TAM didn't happen, what do you think should happen instead? Nothing? Any large conference is going to be
pretty expensive to host and attend, as QED demonstrates, are you serious saying you'd rather those
opportunities just didn't exist for people? That seems to be a step backwards.
"I didn't call any particular person a name"
But you did call people names. And you have yourself admitted that - to use your own words - your post
was "mocking" and "scathing", so I have to ask again, how is taking that attitude a constructive way to start a
debate? Do you honestly believe that mocking grassroots skeptics was a great way to start a good-spirited,
sensible and measured discussion?
Oct 20, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Martin Robbins: With respect I would prefer you debate the initial premise set out in the original piece, rather
than try and frame a debate you want to have which I don't. Besides my points were speculative in tone so your
demands for hard evidence are irrelevant. Unless you have developed some method of acquiring evidence from

164 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
the future none can be provided to settle either side of this argument so you'll have to respond to the
propositions above.
Feel free to fisk the original post line by line if it helps you stay on track.
Oct 20, 2010 Martin Robbins said...
"With respect I would prefer you debate the initial premise set out in the original piece rather than try and
frame a debate you want to have which I don't."
What is your premise then? Because frankly at this point it's not at all clear to me. I responded to the points
laid out in your post, pretty much line by line.
If you don't want to have a debate about things like e.g. whether JREF and TAM are trying to 'own' UK
skepticism, then why did you, to take just one of many examples, conclude with the comment that: "While we do
not yet know JREF/TAM's long term plans in the UK, I am of the opinion that attempts by any one organisation
to own the organisation of skepticism and its surrounding culture should be resisted."
And if you don't want to debate the evidence for TAM having a positive or negative influence on SITP, then
why did you write a section of your post about potential harm to SITP, and speculate that it might become part
of JREF/TAM?
This is getting a bit daft! You can't dismiss replies to your post by declaring suddenly "well I was just
speculating", and then trying to tell me what I am and am not allowed to respond to from your post!
And when it comes to, for example, the co-existence of JREF and grassroots skeptics in the USA for the last
14 years there's a wealth of evidence and examples you can draw on. Similarly, there is plenty of evidence that
you could gather by speaking to the various SITP groups in the UK on the influence of TAM over the last two
years on promoting groups, nicking speakers and audiences, or whatever else you want to ask. Ditto, you can
quite easily see the lists of speakers at TAM, and find out what other talks and things they've been doing, or
speak to them directly and ask what their policy on giving talks is. It just requires chatting to people.
"you'll have to respond to the propositions above. "
Which propositions then? Can you please at least be clear on which points you would like a reply to?
Oct 20, 2010 wendypearman said...
Hi Martin, you really are an elite to me - I just read this stuff and sometimes contribute and want to help
others who got caught in the endarkenment move out of the superstitious worlds.
If you want to grow your world it needs to be safe for people to have opinions, right or wrong. They need to
have room to consider their views. It is OK to be firm and clear. It is necessary to allow room for
disagreements to be held.
You seem to have heard nothing that has been said here about dealing with one another gently and you don't
appear to have considered what you are presenting to the world.
Gimpy's blogs often leave questions and are often more about debate than necessarily having all the answers.
Your repetitive, sledgehammer, 'being right' interventions have the appearance of sledgehammer to crack nut.
It truly does look awful from where I sit, as someone with no very strong views on this issue.
Trickywoo said - "Not wishing to paraphrase a famous Phil Plait TAM speech, but why are we still being dicks,
not just to 'woo' but to each other? I can't help but feel that if gimplyblog voiced this opinion at a SitP
meeting, it wouldn't be greeted with the downright dickishness on show here. "
You wrote " What might be an idea is if you talk to them, take the points on board, and do another post - a
sensible, reasoned post with evidence and examples that addresses the points people have made in response to
this, and avoids name-calling and accusations." Have you considered how arrogant that looks?
I often do read gimpy but this one I found because you wrote on your Twitter. There will be many like me who
enjoy Lay Scientist output, but who do not enjoy this display. Please stop. When writing please consider what
your style of posting says to people considering skepticism and who are looking for the ideas. There may be
some first-timers watching this. Please consider behaving in ways that invite them back again.
I urge you to consider the pint and chat and reservation of differences ie taing this off-line.
Oct 20, 2010 Skepticat_UK said...
Wendy, I'm sorry, I have read through this entire discussion and I just don't see what you are seeing. Gimpy
has expressed a controversial opinion and Martin has given robust but perfectly civil responses to his
arguments. I'm sure that if Gimpy expected to be treated 'gently' he would disallow comments altogether.
Oct 20, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Skepticat_UK: I disagree with respect to Martin's civility.
Oct 20, 2010 gimpyblog said...
Skepticat_UK: There are other people who have concerns about TAM, they may share my analysis or they may
have different, but still critical, views, do you think they are more or less likely to share them after seeing the
response I provoked?
Oct 21, 2010 Martin Robbins said...

165 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The key word here is 'provoked'. Again I feel compelled to come back to the point that you yourself admitted
your post was "mocking" and "scathing" if you were so concerned about encouraging open and sensible debate,
why did you kick it off by calling people names, and throwing accusations at them? You pretty much lost the
right to complain about the civility of feedback when you wrote such a deliberately mocking post in the first
place, and if it's now harder to debate this issue, then you share a considerable amount of the responsibility
for that.
But fine, let's put that aside if it makes it easier to move on, let's draw a line under any perceived
aggressiveness or incivility since at the end of the day it's probably to some extent in the eye of the beholder.
You said "I would prefer you debate the initial premise set out in the original piece." It's not at all clear to me
now what that premise is, since I felt I replied to the points in your piece line-by-line. So, please can you clarify
what the main premise of your post actually is?
Oct 21, 2010 Munkhaus said...
Martin's responses do come across as overly defensive and emotional. The constant references to name calling
are a quite wearying. "Champagne skeptics" seemed quite light-hearted and humorous to me... unless it hit a
nerve of course.
My (unsolicited) tuppence.
Oct 21, 2010 Sid Rodrigues said...
I think JREF just want to put more money into UK skepticism and help it get a bit more organised and help
groups set-up around the country - as is happening after this TAM.
I worry more about The Skeptic magazine, which is owned and funded by the US group CSI, to be honest.
Oct 23, 2010 rhysmorgan said...
One thing, there were scholarships available this year. I know because I got one...
Oct 23, 2010 iggyduck said...
Whether it's fair, or not, I had much the same outside-looking-in impression of TAM as gimpy. I wasn't there,
but that's also because I don't have an extra £500 to spend on a weekend holiday. Even the name of the
meeting puts me off a little.
I get the twitter-based impression that the skeptic community is often just a clique like any other clique. It
far too easily falls into the echo chamber. Have I made any effort to get inside the clique and learn the truth?
No, not really. Have I made any effort to proselytize about skepticism and change the movement? No, not
really. But not trying to learn the truth doesn't make my impression invalid, and my impression is the reason I
don't try very hard. I generally have the same thoughts I hear active skeptics presenting, but I sense
overtones of idol-worship and back-patting and don't get too close.
Thanks in advance for pointing out that forming opinions about a community based on tweets is not rigorous -
I'm not claiming to be correct - but if the skeptic movement is worried about their image, instead of just being
right, then gimpy's comments should be seriously considered.
Oct 23, 2010 ashpryce said...
@Martin robbins and trikkywoo
Skeptics on the Fringe will be back next year, and it should hopefully be bigger, better and still free. We're
working on adding at least two more events to the three we ran last year which should include a children's
science show and an evening comedy cabaret. We did get some support from English Skeptics groups-
Birmingham, Righteous Indignationm, Bad Psychics and Merseyside deserve a shout out.
One comment that, to be frank, annoyed me slightly as to explain why little support was given from England was
because what were doing was not "an international event"!
We had interest from skeptics groups in both America and Australia and were putting this on as part of the
worlds biggest arts fesitval. As far as "international" goes, the Frigne itself is so much bigger than TAM that
to be told we weren't international enough to be promoted was, to be honest, a kick in the teeth to all the damn
hard work we put in.
Oct 23, 2010 ashpryce said...
It should be pointed out that i am of course aware the Fringe itself is not a skeptical event and I'm not
suggetsing that we ourselves were bigger than TAM, simply that we were aprt of something that is biggest
international festival of it's kind.
Oct 23, 2010 JoVickers1 said...
[quote=gimpyblog]noodlemaz: quick point, the event is exclusive because it is £200 - that is more money than
many can afford. Add to this the costs of travelling and you further exclude a non-London audience.
For the sake of simple argument let's say that every attendee at TAM is motivated to either start or join a
SitP group, that means this vast explosion in skeptical numbers is driven by people who can afford to go to
TAM, and who have come by their ideas via TAM. Thus TAM acts as a central facilitator of skepticism, and one
with a high entry barrier. Therefore skepticism will come to reflect the interests of TAM-goers.[/quote]

166 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
As people who went to TAM this year, I suppose my partner and I would fall under the category of "people who
can afford to go to TAM". Is this supposed to say something about us or the type of skeptics we are? We
travelled down from Liverpool to be at TAM. Neither of us earns more than £16k, not well-off by most people's
standards, and we certainly didn't feel out of place there.
I don't think being a "TAM-goer" says anything about a person's interests in relation to skepticism. My
experience of conversations I had and overheard at TAM gave me the impression of a fairly wide variety of
ideas and approaches and the idea that the attendees have some sort of shared agenda that will lead to a
narrower, more exclusive type of skepticism is one that I just don't relate to.
Oct 23, 2010 JoVickers1 said...
Sorry about the clumsy quoting. I'm new to this. Any help?
Oct 27, 2010 Skepticat_UK said...
@gimpy
Sorry I'm late coming back to this thread. My response to your question is that I can only speak for myself and
I am deterred from sharing my views about TAM by the sneering tone of YOUR post rather than by any of the
responses. I am astonished that you disagree "with respect to Martin's civility". Of course, one person's
"robust but civil" response is another person's "overly defensive and emotional". But I just read through his
posts again wondering if I missed something and I see no name-calling or sneering. All I see is Martin engaging
with what you say in your article and saying what I would have liked to say myself, only better. Thanks Martin.
Oct 29, 2010 latsot said...
TAM is unashamedly a fundraising event. Skeptics who can afford it being entertained while funding the JREF.
Where's the fail?

2010/10/17 FT:TOP SCIENCE FACILITY TO

EXPAND
By Peter Marsh

George Osborne has given the go-ahead to a £69m scheme to expand one of Britain’s most prestigious
science and technology facilities, in an example of a “priority” infrastructure project that the chancellor
says he wants to protect from the spending squeeze.

The £280m Diamond synchrotron is a giant machine that fires X-rays and other forms of highly intense
electromagnetic radiation at materials to examine their structure.

Based in Harwell, Oxfordshire, it is used by researchers in a wide range of disciplines from engineering and
novel energy sources to pharmaceuticals and nutritional science.

It costs about £30m a year to run, about nine-tenths of this coming from government grants paid for by the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the rest largely from the Wellcome Trust, a charity.

Scientists running the facility have planned for some time to expand the machine to increase numbers of
“beamlines” linked to it, so increasing numbers of researchers who can use the facility at any one time.

They had feared the programme would fall victim to public spending cuts, but Treasury officials said on
Sunday that the first phase of the expansion project – costing £69m during the next four years – would be
given the necessary government funding.

The fate of the second part of the programme, which that requires another £31m of spending until 2017, is
still unclear.

The synchrotron opened in 2007. It is one of only about 40 such machines worldwide and the site employs
400 people. The machine uses an array of high-tech procedures to generate beams of light 100bn times
brighter than a standard hospital X-ray machine or 10bn times brighter than the sun.

167 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/18 SCIENCE, REASON AND CRITICAL
THINKING (CRISPIAN JAGO): TAM LONDON
2010: A CRITICAL REVIEW
There were some absolutely fabulous talks atTAM London this year.

I’m not going to write a detailed run through of all the speakers as I did last year, but I did especially enjoy
Susan Blackmore, Paula Kirby and Marcus Chown. Tim Minchin’s new material was obviously brilliant. The
“Amateur Transplants” were an unexpected delight and of course I thoroughly enjoyed the interviews with
Graham Linehan, Andy Nyman and Alan Moore (even though I was rather knackered by the time we got
around to Alan).

However, if you will forgive me, I thought I’d focus on the far fewer number of less positive aspects.

The premiere of the animated movie of Tim Minchin Skeptical masterpiece“Storm” was wonderful. Having
seen the trailer, I knew it would be. DC Turner has done an absolutely brilliant job. However, as much as I
enjoyed the film and as happy as I was to applaud Dan and Tracy for their great work, there was only so
much self congratulatory back-slapping and audience Q&A’s about a short film I could sit through.
Incidentally I love Pulp Fiction too, but I could be arsed with the director’s commentary and all the other
extras on the DVD.

I got the feeling I may not have been alone. As the Q&A’s dragged on there was a noticeable murmur
amongst the polite audience that was clearly picked up on on stage, resulting in the audience being asked
if they would like to continue the session or get Tim to sing a few more songs instead. A suggestion that
despite being preferable by the majority was wholly unfair on an artist who had clearly not been
forewarned of the possible need to prepare any additional material. This seemed like a good time to make
sure I wouldn’t have to take the late train home.

On day two I completely failed to grasp the connection between Melinda Gebbie’s lovely ladies jazz comics
and a Skeptic conference. She was a fine speaker and a great talent, but the only relevance I could see was
that perhaps the subject might have just happened to have been a topic of interest to one of the
organisers. Still, if I organised a Skeptical conference and was able to get Robert Plant to come along and
talk about the recording of the 4th Zeppelin album, I’d probably indulge myself too.

Next in the firing line is Joise Long. Josie is a fine comedian who I always enjoy at Robin Ince’s "9 lessons
and Carols for Godless People", so I was a little bemused as to why she didn’t do one of her great comedy
turns on the Saturday night rather than throwing her out of her depth into an Alan Moore interview that
the perfectly researched and amiable Neil Denny would have handled better without the interruptions.

So I came away wondering if it was the above picky and admittedly trivial points that made a great
conference not quite as great as last years, or was it something else.

As much as I am delighted that a sceptical conference can now herd a thousand sceptical minds into one
hotel, I just felt there was something missing.

168 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Perhaps I am becoming more blasé, or perhaps the TAM London Mega Church by its very definition cannot
recreate the intimacy of your local SitP Chapel.

Perhaps I just wasn’t making enough effort. I accept that I am somewhat socially inept and after a busy
week and a long conference I may well have just been too tired and grumpy to make the effort to talk to
enough new people. So despite a much appreciated shout-out from David Allen Green and the wonderful
and genuine surprise of my very own Skeptic Trump card, I failed to leave on quite the high I had
anticipated.

I’m Sorry I didn’t get the chance to chat with as many people as I would have liked to. I’m not sure if I just
missed you in the large crowd, or if you just failed to venture too far from the green room, or if you were
priced out of the conference entirely.

Postscript.

Oops I almost forgot. Delighted Rhys Morgan won the award for his brilliant work highlightening MMS. I
voted for him, and I'm thrilled so many others did too.

2010/10/18 BBC VIEWPOINT: SCIENCE

'CRITICAL FOR UK ECONOMIC FUTURE'
By Imran Khan Director, Campaign for Science and Engineering

Imran Khan says that research has

its own inherent value

In a Viewpoint article, Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case) explains
why he thinks Britain should invest in a high-tech, "knowledge-intensive" economy if it is to remain
competitive in the 21st Century.

"Science will be essential as Britain rebalances its economy".

"Cuts in spending on science are likely to have important long-term consequences".

169 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Those aren't the words of scientists, but the views of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Institute for
Fiscal Studies (IFS), respectively.

Their voices add to a growing chorus of agreement that includes everyone from Cancer Research UK to the
Confederation of British Industry; an agreement that investing in science and engineering is critical to the
UK's economic future.

Of course, research has its own inherent value. It's the continuation of what we've been doing ever since
we came down from the trees and decided to find out what was past the next hill, or what happened when
we banged two rocks together.

To imagine a world without science and engineering is to imagine the past: a world without electricity,
clean water, the internet, skyscrapers, antibiotics, or air travel.

But it is concern about the future that's driven over 35,000 signatures to the Science is Vital petition, and
over 2,000 activists to descend on HM Treasury calling for sustained research investment.

'Value added'

The arguments are simple and plentiful.

The UK cannot compete on cheap labour or natural resources in the future. And we've seen that relying
solely on the service sector is unsustainable. So we need to invest in a high-tech, knowledge-intensive
economy - where it's all about the "value added" - if we're going to compete in the 21st Century.

Scientists recently held a rally and have signed a petition

against the cuts

In 2007, the UK had a current account deficit of nearly £40bn - a measure of how much more we bought
from abroad than managed to sell. But when it came to research and development, we turned a profit of
£2bn, bucking the overall trend.

UK science and engineering are a global success story because of their reputation for excellence. According
to the Royal Society, research that has been assessed as world classattracts around 90% of university
science funding.

And it's only getting more competitive; success rates for scientistspitching for funding have halved over the
past decade.

But while the UK is debating by how much it will cut research funding, our competitor nations like the US
and Germany are increasing their investment. This is while they try to grapple with the same financial
circumstances that we have, but also after years of having already outspent the UK; in the G7, only Italy
spends less than us as a proportion of GDP.

Credibility problem?

170 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The OECD has said that such cuts "may provide short-term fiscal relief, but will damage the foundations of
long-term growth". And just as it's true that you could lose weight by having your brain removed, it still
doesn't make it a great idea.

The real danger is that the government expects the science base to be maintained by the Big Society. The
evidence to the contrary is clear, and straight from the horse's mouth, with organisations like the
Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Wellcome Trust saying that it is public investment
which incentivises their own operations.

Collapsing public investment in science could be followed by a reduction in private sector spending, and
those two combined would mean that our finest researchers will begin new careers abroad.

With them goes our credibility - and there is no guarantee that we will get either of them back, especially
with our competitors investing as they are.

George Osborne reveals his plans for research in the Comprehensive Spending Review on 20 October. They
are anxiously awaited not just by scientists and engineers, but everyone who wants a sustainable future for
the UK.

In tackling the deficit, we can only hope that Mr Osborne has put research in the right pile: the one marked
"Invest for Growth", rather than "Cut for Short-Term Gain".

Imran Khan is the director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case)

2010/10/18 BBC VIEWPOINT: SCIENCE CUTS

'COULD LEAD TO BRAIN DRAIN'
By Paul Crowther Professor of Astrophysics, University of Sheffield, UK

Hundreds of planets orbiting other

suns have been detected in the past several years

In a Viewpoint article, Paul Crowther, professor of astrophysics at the University of Sheffield, warns that
cuts in the UK's science budget could be devastating and lead to a massive "brain drain" of young British
graduates.

171 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Wednesday 20 October, is making Joanne Bibby nervous.

Her anxiety is understandable since it's the date she defends her thesis at the University of Sheffield. The
exam represents the final hurdle before she qualifies as a research astronomer, and heads off to a post-
doctoral position in Manhattan at the American Museum of Natural History.

Wednesday 20 October is also making me nervous. In part, this is because I have supervised her work over
the past three years.

Mostly though, it's because the UK scientific community is likely to discover the depth of cuts to the
science budget in the comprehensive spending review that date.

Lord Browne's widely publicised review of the funding of university teaching will have far-reaching
consequences both for students and universities.

Far fewer column inches have been devoted to upcoming cuts to the civil science budget.

Yet the squeeze on science - administered through seven Research Councils and representing a little over
0.5% of public spending - may be equally significant in the long-term.

'More with less'

Joanne's move across the Atlantic is typical of the historical ebb and flow of scientists between the UK and
elsewhere. From a low base in the 1980s, the UK has undergone a "brain gain" over the past decade or so,
as investment in science has kept pace with economic growth.

The award of the Nobel Prize for Physics this month to Russian-born, though Manchester-based, scientists
for their discovery of the "wonder material" graphene reflects the high current international standing of
UK science.

Paul Crowther says the UK could "lose access

to telescopes scanning the night sky"

However, warnings about the need to do "more with less" have led to fears that the past decade's
investment will be undone through a "brain drain".

Concerns have led to protests against the proposed cuts via the Science is Vital, initiated by cell biologist
Jenny Rohn. A petition against science budget cuts accumulated 34,000 signatures within a fortnight, many
from beyond academia, and was handed into Downing Street last week.

Science has a relatively low profile with respect to basic public services, but is a great success story for the
UK.

Even the Prime Minister highlighted the need to invest in our science and technology base in the final
leadership debate, to wean our economy off the service sector and banking.

Damage to economy
172 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
Other countries in difficult financial positions are maintaining their science base, or even increasing
investment. Former science minister Lord Waldegrave has warned that short-term cuts to science,
technology and innovation may damage our economic growth in the long-term.

The Royal Society has weighed into the debate by suggesting that a large real-term cut to science budgets
could mean "game over".

Should such warnings be treated seriously? Based on the recent experience of my own scientific
community the answer is a clear yes. Research into understanding the Universe on both very small and
very large scales has already been stung by cuts over the past three years, at a time when the wider
economy was still booming.

Most of the budget of the STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council) - the Research Council
responsible for supporting fundamental physics in the UK - is tied up in staff, operating costs for
laboratories, and subscriptions to access cutting-edge international facilities.

Consequently, a relatively small reduction in funding has had a disproportionate effect.

In astronomy, the volume of university research grants has almost halved within just three years, hitting
the next generation of scientists hardest.

'Golden age'

For the first time ever we are on course to lose access to telescopes scanning the night sky from directly
above our heads.

It is depressing that the funds available to UK astronomical research now looks set to diminish further,
particularly given that all but the highest priority programmes have already been curtailed.

Manchester-based winners of
Nobel Prize in physics were born in Russia

In contrast, the public appetite for astronomy, cosmology and space science is on the increase.

We are living through a "golden age" of discovery. Hundreds of planets orbiting other suns have been
detected, most of the matter in the Universe is "dark", while geysers have been witnessed on one of
Saturn's moons, the latter featured in Brian Cox's Wonders of the Solar System series which attracted
millions of viewers earlier this year.

173 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
If the STFC were to receive a further major cut, various unpalatable options would arise.

Either it could mothball laboratories used by scientists from other disciplines, withdraw support for
students and research staff such as Joanne, or even withdraw from one of the "big science" international
clubs, such as Cern or ESO.

Politically, the latter might appear the least bad option, but withdrawal would relegate the UK from the
Premier league to Sunday league in either particle physics or astronomy.

Besides, huge penalty clauses wouldn't save any money in the short-term, and merely signal that the UK is
no longer a credible international partner.

We are genuinely world-beating in these subjects, yet the STFC might be forced to retreat entirely from
one of these fields, despite astronomy, cosmology and particle physics being responsible for attracting
students to physics at university.

More generally, severe science budget cuts would signal that the UK is less attractive for private
investment than other countries, reducing our competitiveness.

Businesses would be less likely to fill the gaps in public support for research, leading to a narrowing of our
broad research base.

Some disciplines are relatively insulated from cuts through support from charities, whereas others have
little alternative sources of funding, especially those in the physical sciences.

Curiosity-driven research in physics and chemistry may not have obvious economic benefits, yet major
advances can come from the most unexpected of places: graphene was discovered using nothing more
sophisticated than sticky tape; document handling at Cern led to the establishment of the world-wide web;
and GPS technology in mobile phones arose from radio astronomers' attempts to measure the size of
distant quasars.

UK industry desperately needs more scientists and engineers, but without a positive signal from the
government, many young people will either choose a different career or the trickle of scientific talent
overseas will become a flood.

Joanne, and many of her contemporaries, having been trained through the public purse, might leave for
good.

Scientists do live in the real world, and worry about public sector cuts as much as everyone else.

Still, let's hope that HM Treasury recognizes that long-term economic recovery will be enhanced through
stable investment in science, technology and engineering.

Paul Crowther is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Sheffield, UK

2010/10/18 CASE: REVIEWING THE BROWNE

REVIEW
By Michelle Brook, a recent graduate in Biochemistry from the University of Cambridge, has been working
as an intern in the CaSE offices and helping with the Science Is Vital campaign. CaSE Director Imran Khan
and Assistant Director Dr Hilary Leevers also contributed to this post.

174 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The much anticipated review by Lord Browne on Higher Education Funding was published last week,
having been commissioned by the previous government in November 2009.

CaSE welcomes the Browne reviews’ attempts to secure the funding of science and engineering courses in
order for the UK to remain competitive. However, there are concerns at some of the repercussions
specifically in three key areas: funding, access and choice of careers.

Funding: is there any more money for universities?

Under the proposals within the review, students would receive a non-means tested annual loan of £3,750
for living costs, with additional support for students from families earning below £60,000 a year.

The review proposes radical changes to costs for learning, with the removal of the current tuition fee cap –
generating a free market. This would lead to variation in student fees across both universities and
subjects, with £7,000 being the value the report foresees as “being roughly equivalent to what institutions
will have to charge to maintain investment at current levels”.

Without a cap, however, fees could potentially go much higher than the £7,000 figure. Market forces may
lead to vastly increased fees for certain courses, such as those at Russell group universities and those
which are expensive to teach, such as science and engineering. Overseas students attending Higher
Education Institutes (HEI) in the UK are presently charged an average of £11,435 for laboratory-based
subjects with Imperial College London charging up to £26,250. It can only be hoped that the fees currently
charged for overseas students are not indicative of what a free market will charge UK students. There may
also be interesting repercussions for the balance of overseas and UK students as the difference between
their fee income lessens.

In 2004, funding for science and engineering subjects relative to that of library based subjects was reduced
and, combined with a concentration of research funding in a small number of institutions, this contributed
to the closure of a number of university departments, notably, physics and chemistry. Such strategically
important subjects then received a boost in funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for
England, although arguably not up to optimal levels. It is vital that any changes in funding ensures that
courses in these subjects provide the necessary hands-on practical training.

Indeed, the report recommends that the proposed Higher Education Council subsidises fees for those
deemed “priority subjects” – likely to include science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
courses. These subsidies are only meant to “to secure the delivery of priority subjects and sustain demand
from students” – tuition fees for these courses may rise above the average, with implications for widening
participation (see section below). The Council would be able to target funding to prevent institutional
failure – it should also be monitoring total and geographical delivery of priority subjects.

Students would pay no fees up front, and it is to be welcomed that part-time students would also be
eligible for the loans, unlike under the present system. Loan Repayments would be made at a rate of 9% on
any graduate income above £21,000, with any balance remaining after 30 years written off.

One of the key principles of the document is that “More investment should be available for higher
eduction”. Whilst the introduction of increased tuition fees does in principle generate more finance for
universities, it must be noted that until the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review are known, it is
impossible to determine to what extent universities might actually gain under these proposals.

If public funding for teaching grants is withdrawn, then the average fee would have to be £7,000
for universities to generate current funding levels. However, the Browne review recommends a system of
levies that universities have to pass on from student income over £6,000, to discourage universities from
demanding overly high fees. In fact, of the next £1,000 students would pay to £7,000, £400 would

175 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
effectively be paid to the government, with only £600 being paid to the university. This levy operates on a
sliding scale, reaching £750 for each thousand over £11,000. It seems likely that a better system could be
developed to stop fees rising out of control without students effectively having to fill the government’s
coffers. There is currently no indication of what these ‘levy’ funds would be used for, or even whether they
would be channelled into Higher Education or not.

Although the Government would still be paying for the degrees ‘up front’, as previously, CaSE understands
that Treasury accounting methods deal with ‘loans’ to students differently to the previous block grants – so
they won’t be counted as government expenditure in the same way. The government should clarify this as
a matter of priority.

Access: will the proposed model deter some students?

A second key principle of the review is that “Everyone who has the potential should be able to benefit from
higher education”, with a proposed 10% increase in the number of places. However, there may be
complications regarding young people from non-traditional backgrounds. Evidence shows that young
people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely than others to be discouraged from attending
University by the prospect of debt. Despite the fact that no finance is required upfront, a system in which
greater student debt is accrued may deter some from gaining a degree.

The proposed finance model might also affect participation amongst minority ethnic groups. Graduates
from some ethnic minorities initially do less well in the labour market and they therefore may be less
willing to take on increased debt at university, and thus less likely to study at degree level.

Decreased participation from non-traditional backgrounds may be seen more sharply amongst STEM
subjects if they end up being more costly to study. Students may make subject choices based upon
financial calculations as opposed academic interest. There must be a system in place to ensure students
are neither pushed out of STEM into cheaper subjects nor to second-choice universities purely as a result
of either perceived or real financial constraints which would exacerbate existing inequalities.

There may be additional impacts upon university choice for students. Already, the financial benefit of living
at home has been show to influence students choiceof university. A rise in tuition fees, even if students
pay nothing up front, may lead to an increase in those opting for this route. Whilst in itself this is not a
problem, there are issues revolving around local provision of subjects after the aforementioned spate of
departmental closures left some areas of the country with minimal provision for STEM subjects.

Careers – will we get graduates taking jobs in science and engineering?

The proposals within the Browne review will likely impact upon career choices made by graduates,
encouraging them towards careers with high starting salaries. The review recommends the course
information to be supplied to prospective students, including starting salaries. Unfortunately research
scientists and engineers – while socially and economically vital for the country - can have lower starting
salaries. Course information should include life-time increased earnings and proportion of students going
onto post-graduate study.

Overall…

CaSE is pleased that the Browne review does recognise STEM subjects as priority subjects, and welcomes
the acknowledgement that it is important to secure their delivery. However, the challenge remains
to provide more funding to universities to offer these subjects, while at the same time preserving equality
of access and encouraging graduates to into science and engineering careers. And it remains critical that all
this is accomplished without endangering the Government’s (already threatened) Science and Research

176 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
budget, which now sits in the same Whitehall department (BIS) as the Higher Education budget. We look
forward to engaging constructively with ministers as they attempt to meet these challenges

2010/10/18 NEW STATESMAN: THE AGE OF

SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY IS OVER
Michael Brooks

This month, scientists based in Britain have won two Nobel Prizes — but the celebrations have been muted
by the prospect of cuts.

The message pages of the Nobel Prize website made for moving reading after the announcement that
Robert Edwards, the British pioneer of in vitro fertilisation, had won this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine. "Congratulations. You have helped to put smiles on a lot of faces," said Mkpouto of Nigeria.
"Congrats, dear doctor. Thanks for my beautiful niece. God bless you!" said Nathalí Romero Aleán of
Colombia. Edwards's work has changed lives around the world.

On 5 October, a day after Edwards's prize was announced, two scientists based in Britain won the Nobel
Prize in Physics. Andre Geim and Konstantin "Kostya" Novoselov, Russian-trained physicists, took up
positions at the University of Manchester nine years ago. It sounds like cause for a great British
celebration, but the jubilation has been muted.

“Geim and Novoselov could be the last of their kind," warns Imran Khan, head of the Campaign for Science
and Engineering - formerly known as Save British Science. Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, is
similarly gloomy. "That these two people are here is a testament to the strength of our university system,"
he says. "But people thinking about coming to the UK now might not make the same decision."

The sense of pessimism among those working in British scientific research is profound. Research budgets
will soon be cut by levels that could prove disastrous. The Royal Society has warned that a severe enough
cut, coupled with proposed immigration caps that would keep talented foreign scientists from working in
the UK, could mean it's "game over" for science in this country. British science is ranked second in the
world, behind the United States, but that won't last long if the government does not change its plans.
"There aren't many arenas where the UK can say convincingly that it's number two in the world," Rees
says. "Let's not jeopardise one of them."

177 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
It was the robustness of British science that attracted the Manchester physicists, who are both supported
by the Royal Society. Their prize is for the work they have conducted in isolating and researching the
properties of a novel form of carbon called graphene, a material that could revolutionise the electronics
industry. The newspapers have made much of the playfulness of Geim's research (he won a satirical "Ig
Nobel" prize in 2000 for levitating frogs with magnets and co-authored a paper with his pet hamster). But
Geim and Novoselov are extremely smart and resourceful experts in electronics and their prize-winning
breakthrough came as a result of a purposeful search for materials with unexploited electronic properties.

Eureka moment

In graphene, carbon is laid out in a hexagonal pattern to create a thin sheet of atoms, like microscopic
chicken wire. Initially, the researchers were looking to create thin-film carbon electronics by filing down a
block of graphite. That approach failed. Then, in 2004, they saw a colleague cleaning a graphite block by
attaching Scotch tape to the graphite and peeling it away. Geim and Novoselov realised this might peel
away a thin layer of carbon. They created a pencil scrawl, laid tape over it and pulled. Under an electron
microscope, they saw that the tape held a sheet of graphene.

Their breakthrough is already changing the electronics industry. Graphene has extraordinary properties.
First, it conducts electricity with very little resistance. Thus, graphene-based electronics don't waste power
as heat - so they don't require energy-guzzling cooling techniques - and operate using very little electricity.
Graphene is also highly efficient at converting light into electricity and vice versa. Given these properties, it
will be the material of choice for the next generation of solar panels, televisions and computer circuitry.

Geim's and Novoselov's prize came quickly because progress in the field is so fast and the Nobel
Committee didn't want their contribution to be overshadowed by developments. The same cannot be said
of Edwards's prize. The reason for the 30-year delay is worth noting.

“The Nobel is a vindication. It is recognition for IVF research as good medical science," says Edwards's
former colleague Simon Fishel, who runs the Care Fertility clinics. In his view, the medical establishment
has distanced itself from IVF research for three decades - and Britain is now paying the price.

In the run-up to the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first IVF baby, Edwards and his collaborator Patrick
Steptoe were refused funding by the Medical Research Council. Documents made public this year show
that among the factors which influenced the decision were a desire to limit population and concerns over
safety. Edwards and Steptoe found funding elsewhere and pressed on. The result was a birth that changed
the fertility landscape - but not enough for IVF researchers to be accepted as bona fide scientists. The
expense and difficulty of IVF treatment caused some scientists to label it a con. That stigma is slowly being
eroded as the number of IVF children grows.

“It's taken 30 years and four million children to realise it's not a con. It works and it's a routine medical
practice," Fishel says.

Poor relations

Government funders remain cautious. But Fishel and his colleagues aren't too worried about the axe
hanging over science funding; they don't get any public money anyway. They are still handcuffed by
government regulation, however, because of which Britain's pre-eminence in the field has been
squandered. Fishel warns: "It's good to have regulation, but we have become the poor cousins.
Researchers in several areas of the world are rocketing ahead."

If the perfect-storm scenario - immigration caps and a funding vacuum - arises, British pre-eminence in
other areas of science will suffer similar decline. UK investment in science has now sunk to the point where
it is proportionately lower than in almost every other developed country. France, Germany, Singapore,

178 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
China and the US are all increasing their funding and trying to entice foreign scientists. "If it's looking bright
there, and gloomy here, the most talented people will go," Rees says. Novoselov has already warned that
researchers such as he and Geim have many options.

The knock-on effects are likely to be horrendous. A 2007 government report showed that science-based
industries cluster around centres of academic excellence. What's more, the best researchers pull in the
best students. "The Nobel laureates are incredibly important role models - when you're a young scientist,
you look to these people as heroes," says Jennifer Rohn, a cell biologist at University College London. But
even the presence of Nobel winners can't overcome a lack of funds. "There's been a very large axe over all
of us for years," Rohn says. "More and more of my colleagues are bailing out."

The fightback has begun

Facing the dual threat of cuts and an immigration cap, Britain's scientists are mobilising for action. The
Science Is Vital campaign, started by Jennifer Rohn at University College London, wants the government to
recognise the importance of science and not reduce funding. Boosted by support from the Campaign for
Science and Engineering, Rohn and her organising committee (which includes the former Liberal Democrat
MP Evan Harris) are driving a concerted programme of lobbying, letter-writing and protesting in an
attempt to bring about a change in government policy.

So far, the petition has over 26,000 signatories, drawn mainly from science and academia, though not
exclusively - the comedians Dara Ó Briain and Robin Ince and the Labour MPs Andrew Smith and Mark
Lazarowicz have also added their names to the list.

“We have everyone from musicians to soldiers and housewives recognising the importance of maintaining
a strong science base in this country," Rohn says.

Eight Nobel laureates - including this year's physics prizewinners Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov -
have been petitioning the government on the immigration cap, arguing that it is not just Britain's
institutions that have attracted global talent, but that our "inclusive culture" has also made a difference.

Michael Brooks

Michael Brooks is the New Statesman's science correspondent and author of "13 Things That Don't Make
Sense: the Most Intriguing Scientific Mysteries of Our Times" (Profile Books, £8.99)

2010/10/19 EXQUISITE LIFE: BEGINNER'S

GUIDE TO THE BROWNE REVIEW OF STUDENT FEES
If you’re wondering what the Browne Review of student fees really says, the independent Higher Education
Policy Institute has just produced a handy summary, which we reproduce here in full.

"At its core, the system that is proposed is the same as the present:

 Higher education will be free at the point of use;

 Universities will be able to charge different fees (variable fees);
 For those students who apply for a loan for the fee, the government will pay the university on their
behalf. The “graduate” (or more accurately the student when he or she leaves the undergraduate
course, whether they have graduated or not) will repay the government subsequently;
 Former students only pay the government when in work and when their income has passed a
threshold;
179 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
  The repayment is 9 per cent of the salary earned beyond the threshold, paid through the taxation
system;
 There is to be a system of loans and grants for maintenance.

Building on these arrangements, there will be some important differences, among the most important of
which are:

 There is no longer to be any limit on the fees that universities may charge – £3,300 at present.
However, a graduated levy is proposed on any fees above £6,000, so that for example, 75 per cent
of any fee above £12,000 will be paid by the university as a levy to the government. This measure
will both deter universities from charging high fees, and will potentially tax the rich to help the
poor;
 At present the rate of interest charged on student loans is the rate of inflation (i.e. zero real rate of
interest). The Committee’s proposal is that the rate of interest should be fixed at the government's
rate of borrowing (presently 2.2 per cent). Although this will represent a real rate of interest, it will
still require a substantial government subsidy;
 The arrangements for maintenance have been simplified and are slightly more generous;
 Part-time students with an FTE of one third or more are to be entitled to the same loans as full
timers to cover the cost of their fees (with the strong implication therefore that the fees that part-
timers pay will need to be the same, pro rata, as full timers);
 The present cap on the number of students that each university may recruit is to be removed.
However, an alternative indirect control is proposed by stipulating minimum grades for entry
qualifications;
 In the context of the strongly market orientation of this review is the recognition that for markets
to work well, good information is required, and the Committee makes some useful suggestions
about the better information that students will need in deciding whether and where to go to
university."

The summary is part of a longer examination of the Browne Review available on the HEPI website.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/10/19 FT: OSBORNE CUTS TO USHER IN

‘SOBER DECADE’
By  George Parker and Chris Giles

180 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 Open book: Chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander
photographed with a visible draft of a CSR document on his lap

George Osborne will on Wednesday usher in the “sober decade” when he announces an £83bn package of
spending cuts that will transform the British state and force hundreds of thousands of public sector
workers to seek new jobs in the private sector.

Mr Osborne’s long-awaited spending review is expected to herald the loss of 490,000 public sector jobs by
2014-15 – a snatched photograph of a Treasury briefing document confirmed – and hardship for those who
remain.

Pay for most public sector workers will be frozen for two years, while their average pension contributions
could rise by up to 3 percentage points – an effective pay cut – to save the taxpayer billions of pounds.

The chancellor’s austerity package waspraised in advance on Tuesday night by Mervyn King, Bank of
England governor, who defined “S.O.B.E.R.” as meaning “a decade of savings, orderly budgets and
equitable rebalancing”.

Some 35 company bosses insisted this week that the private sector would be able to absorb this tide of
refugees from the public sector; if they are wrong, the coalition could pay a heavy political price.

The wave of job losses was set in train on Tuesday when David Cameron announced 42,000 posts to go in
defence – part of an overall 8 per cent round of military cuts – while Channel 4 News reported 14,000 jobs
to go at the Ministry of Justice.

Mr Osborne and Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, on Tuesday night met MPs from their respective
coalition parties to sell the package and to prepare them for what is likely to be a torrent of political,
media, public and union criticism.

But Mr Clegg told his MPs he was “more convinced than ever” that the cuts were vital and that policies
such as a pupil premium – aimed at poorer children – would lead to a more liberal Britain.

Meanwhile, the chancellor has “discovered” several billion pounds at the last minute – squirrelled away
from welfare and other savings – to help fund growth projects, particularly the science budget and regional
funding.

181 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The Treasury may also be able to avoid some of the more painful welfare cuts, with some officials close to
the process saying that child benefit payments for students aged over 16 would survive, although other
benefits would be cut. “The back pocket is useful in these negotiations,” said one aide.

Mr Osborne will tell the Commons he is sticking to his plan to eliminate thestructural deficit within four
years; he argues that fiscal rigour would be even more essential in the event that Britain slipped back into
recession.

But the Treasury acknowledges a small number of cuts will be delayed or “reprofiled” to take account of
redundancy costs and the fact that existing contracts are difficult to break.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research argues on Wednesday that growth is likely to be
slower than the government thinks, leading the deficit to fall more slowly than the chancellor wants.

Additional reporting by Chris Tighe

2010/10/19 GUARDIAN SCIENCE NEWS:

SPENDING REVIEW SPARES SCIENCE BUDGET FROM
DEEP CUTS
£4.6bn yearly spend on scientific research will be frozen for review period, equating to real-terms
reduction of around 10%

Ian Sample, science correspondent

Vince Cable and David Willetts were

in negotiations with the Treasury until early this week. Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

The science budget will be spared major cuts in tomorrow's spending review as the government looks to
limit the damage to Britain's research and innovation base.

The £4.6bn yearly spend on scientific research will be frozen for the review period, guaranteeing "flat cash"
for universities and research councils, sources at the Department for Business Innovation and Skills told the
Guardian.

182 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The freeze corresponds to a cut in real terms, as inflation reduces the spending power of the budget year
on year. The reduction after four years is expected to be around 10%.

A further £1.4bn spent on large facilities will not be protected, however, and is expected to be cut by
around 50% in line with reductions in capital expenditure anticipated in other departments.

The business secretary, Vince Cable, and the science minister, David Willetts, were in negotiations with the
Treasury until early this week finalising the scale of cuts to the science budget. Both made the case that
research and innovation were critical to rebuilding Britain's finances.

"The Treasury appreciated that to go further than it has would have put a question mark over that," the
Guardian was told.

In recent weeks and months, vocal supporters of science have lobbied government and demonstrated
outside the Treasury against making major cuts to the science budget. A report from the Royal Society
concluded that a freeze on science funding was "bearable". Cuts of 10% would "seriously jeopardise"
scientific stability and productivity, and 20% cuts would do "irreversible damage" to British science.

Fears of major science cuts have prompted fears of a brain drain of UK researchers to countries that have
chosen to invest in science, such as Germany, France, the US and Singapore.

Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said: "This is still a significant cut when
other countries have recognised that if you want to go for growth, you have to invest in science. Flat cash
means a 10% cut over the four-year period and the people who will feel that cut soonest are the young
scientists, who we will struggle to retain in this country."

It is unclear what cuts to the capital budget will mean for major science facilities in Britain, but funds
earmarked for the £600m UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, which is due to open in London
in 2015, have been preserved. The centre, to be built near King's Cross station, will house 1,250 biologists
and other scientists and will focus on turning research into new treatments for conditions such as heart
disease and cancer.

John Womersley, director of science programmes at the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC),
has warned it would be impossible to sustain major cuts without mothballing a major facility such as the
£383m Diamond Light Source, which opened three years ago, or the £145m Isis neutron source. Both are in
Oxfordshire.

The science budget will retain a ringfence that prevents funds being moved around after the spending
review. The protected £4.6bn will pay for science at universities through the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE), and the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).

2010/10/19 CASE: LOOKING AHEAD TO

TOMORROW’S CSR
By IMRAN KHAN

Imran Khan is the Director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering (CaSE)

Tomorrow the CSR will be unveiled. At the very least, this will outline the budget for BIS. CaSE’s best guess,
however, is that BIS’s budget will be broken down to some extent.

183 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
In practice, this means we will probably know much funding has been awarded to Higher Education, how
much to the Science Budget, and how much organisations like the Technology Strategy Board get, as well
as what the R&D tax credits are like. The science ‘budget’ isn’t the same as science ‘spend’ – the latter is
much larger. See table 1 in this 2-page briefing for details.

CaSE will be issuing a full analysis and press release tomorrow as soon as possible after the announcement.

Science budget

In terms of the Science Budget, we will get an overall figure which will be shared out amongst the Research
Councils. Cable’s department then decides how to use that budget to fund research. There is no written-
down process by which this happens, but it is likely they will consult with the research councils, national
academies, HEFCE, etc. A key figure in this allocation process is Prof Adrian Smith, the BIS Director General
for Science and Research, who will be advising Cable.

There is also no firm deadline by which this has to happen – but it does deal with money that the research
councils will require for the next financial year in April, so we can expect a decision within the next few
months. It’s at that point we’ll know the extent to which government wishes to prioritise particular fields
of research or projects. See here for how the last allocation was broken down.

Higher Education

Previously, as well as receiving funding for teaching, the Higher Education Funding Councils for England,
Scotland, and Wales also received money with which to fund universities to do research. This is mostly
made up by the ‘Quality Related’ stream (QR). QR money is allocated based on the Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE), which looks at past research performance. The QR money and Science Budget complement
each other in the ‘dual stream’ support mechanism.

It is not clear if the CSR will break down the Higher Education allocation into support for research and
teaching. However, if the government is looking to endorse the Browne Review’s proposals, it is likely that
the funding for teaching (£4.7bn this year just for England) will be drastically slashed, with tuition fees
taking its place. The media have reported an 80% reduction. But the research element of HE funding forms
a vital part of the UK science funding landscape, and university teaching is vital for training the scientists
and engineers of tomorrow.

If university funding is drastically cut, it will be difficult to predict what will happen to university income, as
the proposed ‘free market’ model gives no guarantees as to which institutions will receive funding, and
universities will face a trade-off between setting high fees and attracting top students. As HE and Science
are now both funded by one department, there is a danger that the science budget will subsequently be
‘raided’ to makeup a shortfall in funding for universities.

Other funding

As well as the science budget and QR money, government also funds a lot of research via Whitehall
departments. They will decide on their research priorities individually. If research budgets in those
departments are cut, it will lead to a substantial decrease in how much science takes place in the UK.

£3.4bn is spent by government departments to inform policy making and develop specific capabilities. The
projected spend for the Department of Health for 2008-09 was £711m, for DEFRA it was £132 m, DFID,
£144m, and for the MoD, £2.1b. The MoD has an annual spend of £44.63 b and is expected to make 8%
cuts – this would total £3.6b. It is therefore vital that (for instance) the MoD does not see R&D as an easy
hit as it could wipe out the entire R&D budget, a source of great economic growth not just through military
applications.

184 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
It could be misleading of government for them to say that a small cut for the ‘science budget’ means
relative protection for UK research – the picture is much bigger than just what the research councils
receive.

2010/10/19 NATURE: UK SCIENCE FUNDS IN

LIMBO
Public spending cuts leave research councils with hard choices over which fields to support.

Geoff Brumfiel

Jennifer Rohn has rallied scientists to fight the cuts.Lewis

Whyld/PA Wire/Press Association Images

In recent months, UK scientists have fretted, lobbied and protested in anticipation of the government's
comprehensive spending review — a four-year budget to be unveiled this week that is designed to slash
the country's deficit through deep cuts in public spending.

The budget was still being finalized as Nature went to press. But the battle over the cuts has already turned
from whether they will happen, to where they will fall. The spending review itself "is only the start of a
process", says David Willetts, minister for universities and science. In the months to come, research
councils, universities and ultimately scientists themselves will have to make tough choices about what
science to pursue in difficult economic times.

"Everybody's been asking what's next," says Jennifer Rohn, a cell biologist at University College London and
the organizer of Science is Vital, a grassroots group protesting against the cuts that sprang up in September
(Nature is an official supporter of the campaign).

The seven research councils — which deliver about half of UK public research funding (see 'How UK science
is funded') — will finalize different scenarios for accommodating the budget reductions. They are unlikely
to skim evenly across all areas of science, and instead will probably cut funding from some fields to
preserve others. The details of the cuts will be worked out in negotiations between the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills, which oversees science spending, and the research councils.

Although the councils won't be in direct competition, the process could stir up trouble, says Colin
Blakemore, former head of the Medical Research Council who is now at the University of Oxford. "The
likelihood of infighting between disciplines is really very great," he says.

185 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
The consequences of even small reductions will be significant. Many research councils are heavily
committed to running research centres, maintaining equipment and paying for subscriptions to
international efforts such as CERN, the European particle-physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland. In any
given year, some 95% of research-council funding is committed for the following year. That means cuts will
fall first and hardest on new grants. Even a small drop could trigger a dramatic fall in already low grant-
application success rates (see Nature 464, 474–475; 2010). Meanwhile, universities are facing even more
uncertainty following a review of higher education published last week. An independent panel led by BP's
former chief executive, John Browne, recommended removing a government cap on tuition fees while
slashing teaching subsidies. The plan, expected to be adopted by the government, will lead to an upheaval
of university funding and may leave some universities uncertain about their income.

Richard Jones, pro-vice chancellor for research and innovation at the University of Sheffield, says that
whole departments could be lost in the struggle to adapt to the new landscape, and science departments,
which are costly to run, will make tempting targets. "Unfortunately, there will be fewer institutions that do
science in the United Kingdom," he predicts.

Talk of consolidation is also rife in the corridors of government. The hope is that concentrating scientific
expertise and facilities will allow researchers to do more with fewer resources. Rohn, however, is sceptical
that scientists would be prepared to "make a pilgrimage to the one confocal microscope left in the United
Kingdom".

Although this week's spending review acts as a guide for the next four years, it will not lay out specific
annual budgets. Blakemore says that uncertainty over future funding may be as damaging as the headline
cuts in this week's budget. "The impact of open-ended cuts is far greater than the impact of defined cuts,"
agrees Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK, which advocates for
research spending. Khan says that his group will be lobbying hard for a government commitment to
186 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
increase science spending in step with the gross domestic product in the years following the current
budget.

The full impacts of the science budget may not emerge until next year. But decisions may come more
quickly for Rohn. Aged 42 and on her third postdoc, she fears her time in research may be coming to an
end. "My fellowship runs out in a year's time, and I'm fully expecting not to get a job," she says. "It's
heartbreaking because I really want to stay in science."

2010/10/19 EXQUISITE LIFE: HEPI’S

DEVASTATING CRITIQUE MAKES BROWNE LOOK
SHALLOW
Be in no doubt, the assessment of the Browne Review of student fees produced yesterday by the Higher
Education Policy Institute is extremely damaging.

It is not that the independent HEPI disagrees with Browne on this point or that point. That is to be
expected with a report covering as much ground as Browne.

No, the truly damaging aspect of HEPI's critique is the repeated allegation that Browne’s finding are not
properly thought through.

According to HEPI, Browne has failed to undertake important preparatory research, gets its facts wrong, is
simplistic, fails to explain its reasoning, asserts conclusions on matters of dispute, comes to conclusions on
the basis of detailed but unpublished calculations, fails to properly cost its proposals, gets confused about
important issues, proposes schemes that are unworkable, ignores important concerns, draws implausible
or unproven conclusions - and so on.

For example, HEPI takes aim at one of the central conclusions of Browne, that the much higher fees and
interest rates will not deter poor students from university. It says, "The Committee’s confident conclusion
that 'if fees can be deferred, then participation can be protected' seems at best optimistic. A fair
conclusion is that we do not know how the proposed changes will affect decisions about whether and
where to go into higher education."

The overall impression that HEPI gives is that Browne is shallow and amateurish. HEPI's director is Bahram
Bekhradnia, formerly director of policy at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and you get
the impression that in his day such a shoddy piece of work would never have been allowed to reach
publication without a substantial improvement in quality.

John Browne used to run one of the world's biggest companies, and very successfully. But HEPI's critique
suggests that the decisiveness that made Browne a true captain of industry may have limited his wilingness
to get to the bottom of complex issues.

HEPI's is a closely reasoned critique and one which, because of Bekhradnia's background, it will be hard for
Browne or the government to swat aside.

***

I have extracted below the dirty bits from HEPI's critique (bold highlighting is mine). These are not
necessarily the most important observations HEPI has to make. Rather, they are the ones that give the

187 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
impression that Browne's entire approach is shallow. Numbering refers to the numbers used in HEPI’s own
summary of its analysis.

9 Also, some fundamental points are asserted by the Committee and taken as a given – that it is right that
the contribution from government should reduce relative to the student contribution (and in many cases
that it should disappear completely); and that the market is a sufficient mechanism for determining where
students go to university and for making judgments about standards and quality. These are highly
contested points, and their assertion as a given colours the entire report.

11 Knowing what it knows about the cuts that are to come, the Committee suggests that £6,000 in fees will
be the amount that will allow universities to maintain funding levels equivalent to today's (actually £6,000
would be less than today's level of funding according to the Committee, but in an alarming return to the
language of the 1990s it speaks of “efficiency” reductions to justify a figure of £6,000. These “efficiencies”
are likely in reality to mean worse student:staff ratios – England already has one of the worst in the OECD
area – or fewer books in the library). Many universities may feel that they will be unable to charge fees
even at that level, and many will charge less. They may find ways of maintaining quality while being more
“efficient” but in that case similar “efficiencies” should be required of others. Most likely, their quality will
suffer. They may be able to attract students because of their price. As likely is that they will
enter a spiral of decline. We cannot know, nor does anybody else. No market research
underpins the report, and so a substantial risk is being taken.

12 The Committee appears strangely unconcerned with the effects of its proposals on
universities whose market position may not be strong and which may not be in a position to
sustain even a “lower resource” fee of £6,000. The country needs these universities to thrive and succeed.
The reason they may not be strong in the marketplace may have nothing to do with their quality or their
standards. There is ample evidence that one of the principal things that motivates students in their choice
of university is to acquire a positional good; and historic reputation, longevity and institutional wealth
(largely driven by research income) are the prime drivers of this. The market undoubtedly has a role, but
the apparent absence of any recognition of public interest in the health and well-being of those
universities that may not thrive in the marketplace is to be regretted. Universities are part of the national
infrastructure, and it is in the interests of the country and the responsibility of the government of the day
to ensure that universities at all levels of excellence thrive.

15 The government appears largely to be withdrawing from investment in higher education teaching, and
the Committee appears to endorse this as a matter of principle, rather than an unfortunate consequence
of the economic crisis. If that is the Committee's view, it is a pity that this fundamental point was not
argued in more detail rather than offered as a given. If that is not the Committee's view then it is equally a
pity that it did not argue more vigorously for greater government investment.

17 What is less convincing is the argument for removing any cap and allowing unconstrained fees. If these
proposals are implemented then England will be virtually the only public higher education system in the
world (including in the United States) with no government imposed fee cap. The reason all other countries
regard university fee levels as a matter where the government has an interest is that the fees charged by
universities – and the implications of this for access and participation – are matters of public interest. It is
implausible to say, as the Committee does, that it felt unable to set a limit because there
was no objective way of doing so. All other jurisdictions find it possible.

188 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
*

20 The Committee proposes many measures which can be expected to increase public expenditure, and
others that will lead to a reduction, and calculates that net effect will be to reduce the demands on
taxpayers by £1.8 billion annually. A large part of this is the reduction of HEFCE teaching grant from £3.5
billion annually to £0.7 billion, but the next largest is an increase in fee loan repayments to £2.9
billion – a highly uncertain figure that it is not possible to test because the underlying
assumptions have not been revealed.

21 So we must take the claim that the proposals will reduce the taxpayers’ contribution by
£1.8 billion annually as at best unproven and at worst unlikely,

27. There is a strong emphasis by the Committee on the market as a mechanism for setting fees and for
enabling students to exercise choice and for improving quality. It is this that underpins the Committee’s
recommendation that there should be no constraints on universities recruiting students. However, the
report also acknowledges that much better information is required for the market to work correctly. To
this end it makes ambitious proposals – repeating proposals that have been made previously but have
never been fully implemented – concerning advice and guidance for potential students. It does not go so
far as to say that until the information needs have been addressed its recommendations that rely on
market mechanisms should be put on hold, but that is the clear logical conclusion. Reliance on the
market to the extent proposed by the report will be positively dangerous if the market is not
working properly and in particular if good and accurate information is not available to
inform choice.

30. Although the loan and repayment arrangements are similar – and although the previous fee regimes
did not impact participation – the amounts concerned are much higher now, both the absolute amount of
the fee and loan, and the interest payable. We cannot be so confident in future that the financing
arrangements will have no impact on participation. Indeed, to the extent that the decision
to participate in higher education is an economic one, it will be entirely reasonable to
assume that the much higher costs will put some people off higher education. And it is
reasonable also to assume that these will disproportionately be from poorer backgrounds,
who tend to derive the least financial benefit from having attended university.

31 Although the Committee’s confident conclusion that “if fees can be deferred, then
participation can be protected” seems at best optimistic. A fair conclusion is that we do not
know how the proposed changes will affect decisions about whether and where to go into
higher education.

33. On the one hand, it is excellent that part-time students will be able to benefit from the same loans for
fees as full-time. On the other hand, whereas part-time fees have been held down in the past – for the very
reason that loans were not available – these will very likely now rise to match the full-time fee. Yet part-
time students are often in work already, and earn more than the threshold for repayment. And we know
also from HEFCE research published in 2009 that part-time graduation rates are very low (in part no doubt
because a qualification is very often not the aim of those undertaking part-time study).

34. The new arrangements will be mixed for part-time students, but on balance there may
well be a disincentive to study part-time in the future – ironic in view of the well-meaning
intention of helping and encouraging part-time students.

35. The Committee recommends that there should be a further 10,000 places each year provided in higher
education. It also recommends that universities should be free to admit as many eligible students as they
189 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
wish and who wish to apply to them. There is a tension here between the free-market ideology of the
report and the reality of needing to constrain public expenditure and therefore to limit the number of
places. It needs to be remarked in passing also that the latent demand for higher education is far
greater than the 10,000 additional places per year for three years that the Committee
recommends, although what is not known is whether that latent demand will be dampened because of
the increased fees. The Committee has attached no cost to this proposal, though there will be
a cost and it could be substantial, because the interest rate that is to be charged will be lower than
the cost to the government of providing loans. The absence of any assessment of the Resource
Accounting and Budgeting costs of their proposals is a curious and serious omission on the
part of the Committee, both here and in the discussion of the costs and benefits of their
proposals.

36. What the report says about liberalizing recruitment is confusing, if not confused. On the
one hand, the Committee recognizes that there has to be a limit on the total number of students in the
system because of the impact of numbers on public finances. The more students there are, the more loans
the government has to make and the greater therefore the public subsidy. On the other hand, the
Committee wishes to allow the market to rule, and for universities to take as many students as apply to
them. It is unable to offer a satisfactory resolution to this conundrum. It seeks to resolve this by setting a
national threshold for higher education admission according to the number of UCAS tariff points achieved.
So universities will be told by the government whom they may and whom they may not admit – a major
new intrusion into university autonomy.

37. But the Committee recognizes also that significant numbers of students go to university without having
been through the UCAS system, often without points that would count towards the UCAS tariff. In order to
enable the market to be seen to be working unconstrained, the Committee ends up by proposing a
complex and probably unworkable scheme which involves two types of application and “pass marks”
which will shift year by year according to the government’s finances. Thus the problem is solved by turning
the potential student who is qualified but cannot get a place into someone who is unqualified to enter
higher education.

38. In reality, so long as the government is involved in funding – in this case by paying fees upfront through
a student loan – and, even more, so long as there is some public subsidy for each student recruited, then it
seems difficult to see how controls on the number of student recruited by each university can be avoided,
even if that were desirable.

39. Whether it is desirable is another matter. In the neoliberal environment advocated by this report,
where the market is the determining agent that determines which students go where and how many
students each university recruits, the Committee is clearly uneasy about any controls on numbers.
However, universities are part of the national infrastructure, and the government cannot be careless of the
health of universities – and that health to some extent depends on the number of students they recruit. It
is too simplistic to argue, as the report does, that those universities that are not as popular as others will
“raise their game" if they see their numbers falling, or will be allowed to fail. Those universities may be
doing a perfectly good job, but be less well endowed, have less appeal, may be geographically
disadvantaged – there may be a whole host of reasons why they are not so popular. But nevertheless
the national interest would be ill served if they were to fail.

40. Without any explanation or argument, the Committee recommends the transformation of HEFCE into a
Higher Education Council, that takes in the functions of the QAA, the OIA and OFFA. It is difficult to
conclude other than that the Committee has been encouraged to make this proposal by the government's
plan for a “bonfire of quangos”. Certainly, there is no suggestion that the functions performed by the
existing bodies are not required, nor that they are not being satisfactorily performed at present. The OIA
was created only five years ago and it would have been possible then to incorporate it into an existing
190 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
body if that were a better arrangement. And quality assurance was in fact accommodated within HEFCE
until the QAA was created as a separate agency in 1997 as a result of the Dearing proposals. While there is
a certain appeal to taking responsibility for quality and standards away from the control of those very
institutions whose quality and standards are being monitored, this would be a major step, would run
counter to international developments, and should only be done after proper consideration. In the
absence of any argumentation, the reality is probably that the impending emasculation of HEFCE’s
funding role led the Committee to look for other things for it to do.

44. So although it is true that under these proposals universities will have some greater freedoms, they will
also be subject to new and intrusive government controls. And the greater freedom will, in reality, be
exercised by only a minority – those able to command higher fees while at the same time recruiting more
students – while the increased constraints will be more general in their effects.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

Comments
Thanks for pointing me towards the HEPI response; it's very well thought out and intelligently expressed.
Personally, the paragraph in the Browne report that I would most like to see challenged is on page 21, where
they refer to OECD statistics to assert that the benefits to the individual of HE exceed the benefits to the
public and that this supports the argument that the individual should pay more. The same OECD stats show that
the benefits to men of HE are greater than the benefits to women, in terms of lifetime earnings, so should we
be charging men higher fees? Why not try instead to increase the benefits of HE to women or to the public as
a whole? Isn't the characterisation of HE simply as a route to a higher paid job the source of many of our
present woes? There are so many undebated issues in that one little portion of the report, that I am left
spinning round and round not knowing where to start...
Posted by: Cally | October 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Cally, that's really interesting. Can you share a link to the OECD paper you're looking at? I'm genuinely worried
that women may be put off going to university by the new economics.
The other point that strikes me on this is about that figure of £100,000 for increased lifetime earnings.
Certainly in Britain, there is an enormous difference in terms of lifetime earnings between different
universities. So if an Oxbridge degree is worth a lot more than £100k, equally a degree from a new university is
on average going to be worth a fair amount less. Looked at that way, £40k of debt to go to a new university
does not look like a good deal - especially if you're a woman.
Posted by: William Cullerne Bown | October 19, 2010 at 01:19 PM
The Browne review references the OECD Education at a Glance report which is available
athttp://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html.To get
the whole report you need to scroll down past all the data links to "How to obtain this publication". There are
hundreds of pages, but I'm guessing that Browne & co are looking at indicators in A8 (incentives to invest in
HE), but there is an awful lot of data in there and it is impossible to tell what they have considered: the
messages are far more complex than their summary statement suggests.
With regard to the gender gap, indicators in A8 point to a higher lifetime earnings premium for men than for
women (in most countries, including the UK) but indicators in A7 suggest that women in the UK actually do quite
well - although this appears to be because men with what the OECD calls "below upper secondary education" are
at a disadvantage, so there are relatively big gains to be had by gaining some higher qualifications.
I'd love to unpick this some more but I'm already in trouble with my supervisor for spending most of the last
week reading Browne-related reports!
Posted by: Cally | October 21, 2010 at 09:10 AM

191 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/19 GUARDIAN CIF: SCIENCE
FUNDING: BACK THE BOFFINS
The slender margin between painful but unavoidable cuts and economic masochism is the difference
between success and failure

Editorial

If anything keeps the chancellor, George Osborne, awake on the eve of tomorrow's spending review, it
should be worrying over the link between the decisions he has taken about where his axe will fall and the
prospects for future recovery. The slender margin between painful but unavoidable cuts and economic
masochism is the difference between success and failure. Luckily for Mr Osborne, an engine of growth is at
hand that has hundreds of years of success behind it. It is called science.

British science is efficient: for less government investment than any comparable European nation, its
academic output is rated more highly than anywhere bar the US, while nearly a third of the UK's GDP
comes from science-intensive industries. In these days when costs enforce co-operation, it is at the
forefront of many of the most ambitious international projects: from the Large Hadron Collider to the giant
observatories in Chile, British scientists are involved in research of global significance.

But it is not only about the glossy high-status work of big science. The money the state invests in science is
seed corn for innovation, new startup ventures and new jobs – and it attracts and magnifies cash from
business and charities. The OECD points to the experience of Finland and Korea, which both chose to
protect their science base in the downturns of the 1990s. Finland's technology investment arm became "a
springboard for recovery". Korea saw corporate research and development labs increase from 100 to
11,000 in five years. British science already has a strong record. According to the Campaign for Science and
Engineering, between 2003 and 2007, 31 university "spin-outs" were floated on stock exchanges, with an
initial value of £1.5bn. Ten spin-outs were bought for a total of £1.9bn. Mr Osborne acknowledged some of
this in his interview on BBC TV on Sunday morning when he said he would protect large infrastructure
projects, including the diamond synchrotron at Harwell which has repeatedly proved its academic
importance in the past two years.

What the increasingly vocal science campaign argues is that all this cannot be turned off and then turned
back on again. The Royal Society has assessed the impact of a standstill budget, 10% cuts and 20% cuts. No
change would be bearable, they conclude. Cuts of 10%, they warn, would "seriously jeopardise" stability
and productivity, and British science would lose its appeal to overseas scientists (already deterred by
immigration caps). But 20% cuts would do "irreversible" damage. There will be many genuinely deserving
causes aired in the next few weeks. What makes investment in science stand out is that it is the surest way
to a recovery that benefits everyone.

192 | P a g e
VOLUME 13
 2010/10/19 THE GREAT BEYOND: ERC
AWARDS €580 MILLION TO NOVICE
RESEARCHERS

The European Research Council (ERC) has

awarded €580 million in ‘Starting Grants’ to 427 researchers at the beginning of their research careers.
Each award is worth up to €2 million and the total represents an increase of 40% since last year’s funding
round.

This is the third round of ‘Starting Grant’ awards from the ERC - a pan-European funding body set up by the
EU in 2007 to provide money for blue skies research.

Although the ERC suffered from accusations of overblown bureaucracy (see Brussels concedes to European
Research Council reform) in its first few years, around 1,200 researchers across Europe are currently
funded by ERC grants.

Researchers of any nationality can compete for the funding as long as the work is based in European host
institutions and successful applicants are chosen by peer review. This year, 2,873 researchers applied, an
increase of 14% since last year, and about 15% were successful. The average age of successful candidates
was 36 and 73.5% of awards were won by men. The ERC points out that this is an improvement on the
previous year, when men won 77% of the awards.

The bulk of the money went to the traditional centres of research within Europe. The United Kingdom was
awarded 79 grants, the most of any nation, closely followed by France with 71 and Germany with 67. This
pattern has remained the same since the first round of funding in 2008, which saw the same three
countries in the top three spots. A breakdown of awards by country can be seen in the graph above.

Physical sciences and engineering attracted 45.7% of the funding, life sciences 35.8%, and 18.5% went to
social sciences and humanities.

“I believe that the Commission's initiative to launch the ERC in 2007 has been fully vindicated," said
Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn in a press release. "I hope
that in the fullness of time we will see more Nobel prizes awarded to ERC funded top talent, following ERC
Starting Grant holder Konstantin Novoselov's recent Nobel.”

193 | P a g e
VOLUME 13