Yale Provost wins post as Oxford Vice-Chancellor (YDN).
Here are 5 Alternatives to Google Jamboard
2 weeks ago
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Science, Universities and Money
Nature News has recently reported on university conflicts of interest in both the UK and US. A UK study of universities have found raised questions about the accuracy of government statistics on defence-related research grants. Some universities were receiving as much as 5 million pounds to conduct defence-related research, with the money coming from both government and commercial sources. In the US, many top-level institutions have simply trusted their scientists to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.“It's an honour system,” says Robert Alpern, dean of the Yale School of Medicine. “We rely on the faculty to tell us the truth. And to be honest, up until a few months ago, I think we all thought they were telling us the truth.”
What can universities do to ensure that their researchers are declaring conflicts of interest? If asking them to fill in a form that asks questions about large sums of money doesn't work, then will interviewing them be any better, as Duke University hopes? Does it even matter?
These issues relate to some of societies big issues - weapons and drugs. If governments are turning universities into rats in an arms-race, then they aren't serving other purposes. [Scientists for Global Responsibility Consultant, Chris] Langley says that ultimately he believes higher education should spend less on improving the UK's weapons technology and more on research of benefit to society: “We have our priorities wrong,” he says.
One easy example of research that benefits society is the development of medicine - cures for cancer, vaccines for HIV. Healing, instead of killing. But conflict of interest can make this kind of research more of a danger to society than a help. Scientists know how to manipulate the conditions of a study to make a useless drug look like more like a miracle. By making the data fit the statistical requirements, or by using less robust methodology or just straight-out lying, an ineffective or even dangerous drug can make it to the market. Not only would it get prescribed, sold and consumed, but it would all happen with complete confidence. Patients would trust their doctors, doctors would trust the imprimatur of a good university. No one would know until it was too late.
Universities are in a constant bind. Corporate funding comes loaded with potential conflicts of interest. Government funding comes loaded with political bondage. Philanthropic funding is as fickle as the wealthy individuals who hand it out and many students are already being turned into an underclass of cheap easy-to-exploit labour with big debts thanks to tuition fees. Add an [un]healthy dose of globalisation and we have a problem that goes beyond who is being honest about where that $4 million came from...
Friday, June 13, 2008
Sensationalism and Student Media
Change Happens has a post about a student paper covering a rape trial via liveblogging. As the comments show, it is really walking a fine line between exploiting someone's suffering and covering violence against women. These kinds of incidents are part of a continuous conflict between activist progressives and student media. Students involved in media are learning a craft and take on a media-centric ideology. It is common for such students to believe in free speech and the importance of debate. If there is a problem, the solution is to write a letter. If that letter is ignored, the solution is to write another letter.
The activist left has something of a problem with this kind of thinking. It consumes a lot of energy and letters of reply often don't have as much of an impact as the original articles. To protest such things also results in a political backlash, as evidenced by the Farrago controversies of earlier this semester. If progressive activists ask for discriminatory material to not be published, they are readily accused of censorship. If progressive activists use any power or influence they have to compel the non-publication or retraction of discriminatory articles, then they get hammered. It isn't a very comfortable situation to be in, especially in Australian student unions, where the student paper is published by the union and the media office is just next door to other union offices.
For students in media, the behaviour of progressive activists seems inappropriate. They might be protesting too frequently, spending their time monitoring a publication instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing and fighting for various important outcomes. The students at the Columbia Spectator who are liveblogging a rape trial if asked about what they're doing, might suggest that they are just putting out news in the public interest. The horrors of sexual violence are made plain and clear as day. This is a good thing right?
The strange thing is that in many cases, student journalists and editors are themselves socially progressive. In elections they might deal with progressive factions. They will publish progressively minded articles without hesitation. The progressive activists are not, at least in principle, against free speech, but just protective. Their gains are hard won and easily lost.
It is hard for there to be a resolution to this conflict without someone backing down or feeling like they are giving up something. Sometimes, editors might feel that they have to assert their independence. They will have to refuse to be relentlessly policed and directed by outside forces. Neither should activists be confied to writing letters that are all too readily ignored.
Dealing with and celebrating difference is great in theory, but not so easy in real life. Political expediency in both editor and activist is truly a virtue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
