As yet another genetically modified food dispute emerges, Tom Wakeford calls for the two sides to start talking if they want to avoid damaging public confidence in science and in scientists
Two projects that aim to bring a fresh approach to debates concerning the future of food and farming are gathering pace this month. One is Democratising Agricultural Research, based at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). The other, Our Food, is run from the University of Edinburgh.
Etched into the mind of anyone working in the food or farming sectors in the late 1990s was the controversy over GM. It came in the wake of the last Conservative government’s well documented failure to communicate the risks of new food processing methods exposing humans to mad cow disease, BSE.
UK universities started nationwide strike action last week. Why? David Rowley explains why the dispute is far from a typical disagreement about public-sector pensions.
The rise in English tuition fees has opened up a funding gap between English and Scottish higher education institutions some put as high as £200 million. But John Tibbitt argues that tuition fees' likely domination of the coming Scottish elections is a distraction. Other ideas for strengthening the contribution of HE to the development of the Scottish economy and civic society need attention too.
Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington should be forgiven for going over the top in attacking scepticism about climate change or genetically modified organisms, says Andy Stirling.
It is somewhat paradoxical that, just as the European Commission is striving to simplify access to European research programmes, Europe's research landscape is growing ever more complicated. This is a central question both for the Commission’s green paper on Research and Innovation and the next European Association of Research Managers and Administrators event in Brussels on March 2. Why has this complexity arisen, and what can be done about it?
The National Student Survey does not provide the valid, reliable data needed to compare higher education institutions. Such differences as it reveals are statistically and practically insignificant. Yet the media use the data to compile league tables of best-performing higher education institutions, and the tables in turn are being misused by institutions that should know better, says John Holmwood.
The case of Milena Penkowa, the Danish neuroscientist accused of unauthorized use of funding, took another turn on 3 February.
The University of Copenhagen issued a statement that Penkowa had been reported to the police on suspicion of falsifying documents relating to her research.
To lose 6,000 skilled jobs in science R&D may be regarded as a misfortune for the coalition; to lose another 2,400 and a world-class research facility looks like carelessness.
University heads face more hardship following the publication yesterday of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s letter detailing their financial awards for 2011-12.
The letter confirms the outline figures revealed in the budget guidance which the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills gave HEFCE in December 2010. But the letter to vice chancellors still held some unpleasant surprises—notably that the projected cuts will start to take effect in the current academic year.
Ministers aren't the only ones who have yet to grasp the need for a new contract between scientists and society. Tom Wakeford reveals the smoke-and-mirrors behind some recent research-council 'engagement' programmes, and says it’s time to debate some core values.
