This comes from Colin Macilwain in the latest edition of the massively influential journal 'Nature', and I quote in the public interest and as it reinforces the arguments I have made today:
But at the top [of science] there is paralysis: leading scientific organizations do little except chase money and reinforce the ruling nexus of politics and finance – even since the financial crisis of 2008, which discredited the free-market philosophy that underpins that nexus. I argued years ago (see Nature479, 447; 2011) that scientific leaders had failed to respond in any meaningful way to that collapse, and I'm still waiting.
The political structure of the West is in deep trouble, and should it fall apart, there will be plenty of blame to go around. Most will go to political and financial elites, or to rowdy mobs. But some will belong to people in the middle who have taken public funds, defended elites and then stood back and watched as democracy got ridden over a cliff.
I think that fair comment and recommend the rest.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well quoted and should be shared as widely as possible. (Will do so over at my place tomorrow.) Thank goodness that this world of social media, blogging et al, allows voices to be heard in a way that would have been impossible a few years back. (Albeit a double edged ‘trumpet’.)
It is time – indeed, WAY past time – that the academic commonwealth and community broke free of the enslavement to the business model of education (which offers, at best, mere training and formation – important matters to be sure, but not worth dying for!), with all its management – speak and addiction to targets and laregky meaningless psychobabble, and reclaimed its right and true purpose as being the disinterested pursuit of truth and enlightenment in an atmosphere of collegiate academic freedom.
We have become like Plato’s prisoners in the cave, chained so as to be able only to look at the shadows playing on the wall of the cave, shadows cast by the fire outside pouring some light into the cave. But the “puppeteers” have cleverly changed even the “real” things, whose reflections are cast on the cave wall, replacing “real” (meaning worthwhile) values with bogus ones, so we are caught in shadows of shadows.
The paraphrase Marx: “Academics of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but your restrictive, business-defined delusions.”
Indeed you are correct, Andrew. And oh how good it would be if that were to happen. But sadly the window of opportunity for such a revolution has largely closed, and will have done completely with the implementation of the government’s White Paper on universities/HE.
In reality, power and control in universities passed from academics to managers and administrators long ago (with perhaps Oxbridge being an exception, as in so many other ways). Indeed, even at my own university – not one traditinally recognised as overly managerial – the limitations on the power of academics to oppose or change anything have been brutally exposed with the plans (now going ahead full tilt) to close nearly all our regional centres.
Add to this a situation where many, many academics routinely consider what they do to be entirely unrelated to politics, and/or they are supporters or sympathisers of neoliberalism and the degree to which academia in the UK has become irrelevant to any form of policy agenda – much less one that breaks from the mainstream – becomes apparent.
Then, finally, add to that fear – of not getting promoted, of not getting grants and funding, of being shunted into a teaching only position (which by definition means no promotion in most universities) – and self censorship kicks in big time. To give an example, how else to explain the endless stream of climate scientists who can be reeled out (one on C4 News last week) to confidently predict that we can still hit the 2C max global warming “target” when it’s patently obvious we cannot.
So, sadly, while I’m a great fan of Marx, your updating of his call to arms is wasted on UK academia.
Ivan
The other issue is the promotion of the role of the student as a consumer with a right to a product – a good degree
The resulting change in emphasis in roles is significant, I think
Richard
Agreed. It is difficult to know who to abhor the most; the relatively tiny number of people who create disgusting ideas like libertarian ideals, anti-state defunding policies or trickle-down economics, the larger through still small number of ‘enablers’ who surround them, anxious to benefit from their wealth by supporting and spreading the manure they generate or the large number of idiots who slurp the lap it all up from the mainstream media organs and vote them into power oblivious to the harm that will inevitably come their way.
You could run a poll to find out ..
*’and’ not ‘the’ lap it …
*though
“chase money and reinforce the ruling nexus of politics and finance ”
This is the case in most areas of human endeavour -watch the film ‘Sell Off’ which chronicles the improvisation of the NHS under our noses-the same thing is said there.
See: http://selloff.org.uk/nhs/default.html
That is the beauty of funding musical chairs.
You stick them in a bag and watch themselves tear scraps out of those weakest.
The weakened victor is dragged out of the sack as justification.
he or she is grateful.
Let’s get one thing straight we have not had free markets!
We have had large doses of “crony capitalism” ….the real thing disappeared years ago!
The banks have rigged all manner of things from Libor to commodities. How is HFT capitalism?
How can you create credit out of thin air and call that capitalism?
Do you call Chinese manufacturing industries the product of the “free” market … No the workers there are little better than slaves much like British workers for most of the early 19th century.
The manufacturing base of the UK was deliberately destroyed in a class war in order to wrest power from the unions. The “globalisation” card was played and this has nothing to do with “free” markets.
What do you mean by “free” markets …these are impossible without a race to the bottom in ditching government regulations so that we end up with a society like Lord of the Flies on steroids. The rules of nature prevail, red in tooth and claw. Who wants to live in society like that?
We need “fair” trade. We need courts free of political intervention able to dispense real justice not the sort that can be bribed or blackmailed. The wages paid to third world workers need to move upwards so that there is more demand for goods….
BUT the earth only has limited resources.
As a species we are faced with two choices:-
1) Spread out through out the solar system to exploit its vast riches and then onwards through out the galaxy, or
) A return to feudalism marching arm in arm with depopulation, currently favoured by those in control.
I know which choice I would make and that requires libertarianism to over throw totalitarianism. This means cutting government down to size and reversing centralisation …ensuring it does the will of we the people and not small elite, because enlightened authoritarians eg Alfred The Great are few and far between!
Two interesting interviews with heterodox economists considering the current environmental and social limits to growth.
1. Satyajit Das about his new book The Age of Stagnation: Why Perpetual Growth is Unattainable and the Global Economy is in Peril
2. Michael Hudson about his book Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.
http://www.extraenvironmentalist.com/2016/03/20/episode-91-ageofstagnation/
Interesting item on R4 Today this morning regarding share buy backs. Around 40% of FTSE 100 companies indulged in this practice of reducing the number of shares in the market by buying back their own shares, financed by debt, to pump up the earnings per share and generating larger bonuses for the executives. This practice, which used to be illegal, is a clear example of the kleptocracy in action using companies to enrich themselves in the name of ‘investment’.
An apologist for the finance merry-go-round from CCLA dismissed the criticism by using Next as an example of a successful buy back. A classic example the way that the finance industry uses the rogue trader defence to hide systemic wrong, but in this case the one (apparently) good case trumps the many bad.
It also demonstrates how traditional companies who main activity is making stuff become ‘financialised’. When the next crash comes it won’t just be the banks looking for a bailout.
I almost did a piece on that today – Next is doing it
I think it is market manipulation
Debt funded share buy backs are classic CEO/CFO gaming tactics to achieve their own incentives, but don’t forget that they are also promoted by major shareholders who are keen to extract financial capital from stagnating/low return businesses to move into higher return opportunities.
But when these private business gains are enabled through low cost debt finance provided as a result of the financial support by the state to try to repair a broken and flawed banking system – that really is a crime against society in my opinion!
I’ve read Das’ book.
It is quiet depressing in places and he does not spare us the consequences of the sort of capitalism or State-ism that we have seen come to power of late. No-one gets away with bad decision making – be it the financial sector he worked in or Governments. He castigates Governments for convincing people that they can have good pensions and public services without paying for them properly for example (low taxes).
His overall conclusion seems to be we had better get used to less of everything unless we have a willingness to change. No doubt his next book ‘A Banquet of Consequences’ will set out how he feels things should be addressed.
I’m currently reading ‘The Joy of Tax’ which has cheered me up no end before I tackle that!
One additional comment I’d like to make is this. I’m from a working class background and the only one in my family to go to University (which I did as a mature student). In my own original class shall we say, I see a lot anger ripe for exploitation by UKIP and the Tories etc., concerning politics and political parties. To me this is understandable given the increased lowering of wages, condition and opportunities for people to move up. These people are too busy surviving cuts to everything in their lives.
What I cannot understand nor excuse in my new ‘middle class’ world (post studying) is the ignorance and greed I see in the middle class that is all around me. They routinely avoid paying their taxes, are some of the most conspicuous consumers of fuel guzzling cars, believers in OFSTED, obsessed with the value of their homes and yet all too frequently are willing to condemn people receiving benefits to cuts in income.
I’m sick of seeing the middle class take their money (increased by not paying taxes) out of the country to buy villas abroad and pay workers over there; I tire of seeing them tax avoiding and then going to their NHS dentist because even though they could afford private treatment, they are too mean and tight fisted to pay up. I’m heartily sick of them preening their over-valued homes but ignoring the cracking pavements, potholes, blocked drains and non-working street lamps right outside in their community because they will not vote for parties that might put up Council Tax to pay for these services. Or how about we can equate the middle class with the rising management class who are fond of paying themselves more? One new CEO of a Council in the Midlands registered himself as a consultant – not an employee – so he got taxed less than his increasingly underpaid staff and idiot councillors of all political parties let him get away with it.
It is hypocrisy helping to drive democracy over the cliff as much as anything else – an ‘I’m alright jack and not only that One is better than you’ attitude. Class dead in the UK? No.
It is good old fashioned British middle class greed in this country that will send us over the edge I’m afraid. Aspirational greed – so that they can get invited to the queens’ garden parties and mix with the ‘right people’.
Then there is this pitting of one group against another that is causing lots of problems – you see a self endorsing ‘right to be jealous’ emerging amongst working people. Last night on Channel 4 News I saw middle class Kathy Newman (who is getting to be one of the most irritating newscasters on TV IMHO – and I don’t care if I spelt her name wrong) telling a middle class Junior doctor that the pay rise she had got gave her no right to go on strike (even though the doctor detailed what the problems were which had nothing to do with money but with the resources to do the job) and that she should basically feel lucky to be paid well compared to other people in the country!!
Really!!
That sums up the level of intellectual debate in this country at the moment. No wonder things can only get worse for now and why the edge beckons darkly.
‘I see in the middle class that is all around me.’
Couldn’t agree more -the hypocrisy and false consciousness of many in this group sicken me-those that decry the welfare state yet want it if they hit hard times; that use state schools as private becomes less affordable; become buy-to-let landlords; that wallow in Schadenfreude and brag about their kids ‘good’ jobs.
As for Channel 4-I’d ditch that a.s.a.p.
I am sorry but I found this article very strange! What is he expecting from scientists? That they should become politicians or economists? Or take a hard job like running a social care programme (see quoted passage below)?
Of course there are many people in science that care and worry about economic policy but like everyone else they have one vote and like almost everyone else they are not given a platform to express their views on things where they are not perceived to be an expert. Society flourishes from people doing what they do best, and thankfully we have brilliant people that are improving health and finding solutions to climate change. My suggestion would be to encourage them to get on with it.
“And too many ordinary scientists hold politicians in utter intellectual contempt – even though it is the scientists who have chosen a career that allows them to pursue relatively simple problems (such as building a machine to detect gravitational waves) rather than genuinely difficult ones (such as running a social-care programme in a small town).”
If you honestly believe science exists without social, political and economic context then you clearly do not understand science or its significance
And I am aware of your position
The author does
Your root is the one that can lead to the most horrendous outcomes
No. No. You misunderstand my point and position (a scientist who obviously cares or he would not be following your blog!). Of course science has to operate within the political and social context. Most scientists are not in it for the money but to make the world a better place. In general they are highly qualified and could do other things, but choose not to because they care about society and the future!
I felt that this article is a misrepresentation of the scientific community that in contrast to what the author suggests really does care about social, political and economic context.
OK – point raken
I admit I read the exact opposite
But that care does have to be evidenced, surely? Isn’t that what he is saying?
And that does mean speaking out sometimes?
“And that does mean speaking out sometimes?”
I am working on it 😉
Thanks 🙂
Having read these incredibly interesting comments above, all I can add is the closing sentence to my post today sharing Richard’s theme, “It’s no sinecure to say, once again, how urgent it is for humankind to learn from our fabulous dogs!”
I am also a dog owner Paul – from which I learned that good care, love and “dog socialisation” from an early age is essential to living in a peaceful dog household/neighborhood and is also rewarded with a very loyal and protective companion for life.
Sadly our conservative politicians do not believe that the same approach works with human beings – who not surprisingly react in the same way as mistreated dogs when left to the misery and unfairness of the labour market and human rat-race.
Leaving dogs to survive for themselves, live off scraps and charitable handouts, suffer from illness and disease without care or compassion, fight with each other for the amusement or reward of others, or other such cruel but sadly still too prevalent human behaviour – does not produce a harmonious and sustainable dog neighborhood.
Neither does the human equivalent create a harmonious and sustainable planet! So perhaps we do indeed have a lot to learn from the human-dog relationships.
Hector, sitting in his basket behind me, says woof
Keith, my apologies for not getting back to you before now.
Yes, we have nine dogs here at home (down from fourteen) of which the majority are ex rescue dogs. It has been living so closely to these amazing animals that inspired me to write my blog and, subsequently, a book of the same name.
Yes, they are animals. But they have been humankind’s longest animal companion by far and their behaviourial values offer us humans examples we so badly need: integrity; unconditional love; trust; openness – and more.
(Richard, Hector’s woof was picked at this end and generated quite a few tail wags!)
There have been a lot of programmes on TV about cats recently – also comparing them to dogs.
Apparently there are more cats than dogs in the world. I personally do not like domestic cats – not just because of their propensity to kill around 1 million birds and small mammals every year that are already under environmental pressure, but also because I find them to be one of the less empathetic animals to be around. I am more of a dog person.
On TV, dogs have been portrayed as very ‘dependent’ on us whereas cats have more independence – something to do with how long each animal has been domesticated with us apparently.
It may be a sign of our times – times in which individuality and independence (one’s self’) take precedence – that dogs are described in this way.
Surely the fact is however that our relationship with dogs – even cats – and yes, each other is actually INTERDEPENDENT. Why life is portrayed as either one or the other (independence or dependence) when in fact what we usually have is a fusion of both – which we could call interdependence – is beyond me. Well, not really.
Yes our dogs like to be with us – you could call this dependence – but might it also be that they are just social animals who like to be with others? And what is wrong with that? And what do we as dog owners get out of it?
Well we get companionship, a sense of responsibility (even the author of the books ‘A Cat Called Bob’ – a drug addict at one time – says that having a cat gave him a focus from which to discipline his chaotic life) and we even get to take exercise with our dogs that is also good for us (my late father would have sworn by that). We also have an alarm system from intruders – dogs owners everywhere could no doubt go on. An even with cats, having one on your knee purring whilst you stroke it – is very relaxing to be honest. So both the cat and the owner are getting something out of it.
To me, these concepts of dependence (portrayed as bad or weak) and independence (portrayed as a good thing and defining strength – the natural state of things) are pushed through by the market and pro-corporate states, trying to make us make choices between one or the other when in fact the natural state of things is more complex and certainly more joined up than neo-liberals lead us to believe. Markets know that meeting individual need increases profits. I bet you the car makers do not like car-sharing!!
Finally, human beings are not really the top mammal on the planet because we have all been individuals rampantly following our own paths; we dominate because we have worked together (with dogs too no less and even cats who have their uses) to get this far. For me that is the truth of the matter.
As the Tories continue to denude the state of its power for positive collective action, we would do well to remember this.
For me 2 are good company, 3 a crowd and 9 would be a population explosion!
But well done Paul for your admirable dedication to a good cause (and constant dog walking!).
Keith, we are lucky in living in a rural part of Southern Oregon on a thirteen acre plot. So dog walking consists of opening a door! (We also have four rescue cats, two rescue horses and feed the wild deer!).
Pilgrim SR, the exact history of humans befriending wolves is unknown. It could be as far back as 40,000 years ago. There is a reliable theory that early ‘dogs’ increased the hunting effectiveness of those early humans to the point we were could ‘evolve’ to farming the land.
Richard, apologies. Didn’t mean to hijack your post in this manner!
You are forgiven
It was zn interesting deviation