Cross-posting this blog from Making Science Public. This blog post is based on the article I recently co-authored with Sarah Hartley and Warren Pearce, ‘Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance’, published open access in Policy & Politics. Thanks to Brigitte Nerlich for letting me post on MSP. …
They Cam and they went,
BoJo no go; Fox chased off,
Crabb scuttled away.
Et tu Michael? Yes.
Andrea lead some, too few,
May the last one. Win.
Its 12 years since I first arrived at the University of Nottingham as a fresh-faced undergraduate. I didn’t think back then I’d still be here 12 years later, having studied two degrees and worked in a number of jobs across the university. Now it is time to move on (more on this in a later post perhaps), so I thought I’d look back on my time at Nottingham with a photoblog.
My first home in Nottingham was Willoughby Hall. I was a resident of the ground floor extension (bottom right), which I later found out had an infamous reputation around campus (not of my making, I hasten to add).
Like most of my fellow undergrads, I moved into a house in Lenton, directly underneath the brooding blocks of Lenton flats. When I moved in Sainsbury’s Local was still Jacksons’ and the Dog n Topper (now Tesco’s Express) and Grove pubs (now nothing) were still open.
I was fortunate enough to be lectured by a certain Professor Martyn Poliakoff and his 1st year lecture course on Green Chemistry was influential in encouraging me to continue in chemistry after my first degree.
After four years, I graduated with an MSci (Hons) in Chemistry, then decided to return to study a PhD with Pete Licence.
My PhD saw me grapple with pieces of kit a little bit different to what I’d been used to as I learnt a number of techniques in order to study ionic liquids at very low pressures.
From time to time, even the Professor (Rob Jones) was happy to get his hands dirty.
Four years later, I was graduating again.
Although I may lived and worked in one place for over a decade, there were chances to travel, especially to international conferences.
It wasn’t all sight-seeing and tourism, work had to be done too!
and take part in games of tug-o-war.
Outside the lab, I enjoyed relaxing at the cricket,
walking in the Peak District,
and sampling the local music, err, talent.
In case of a late night thirst, there was always one establishment that could be relied upon,
although the University itself is well equipped for those seeking refreshment.
There were sporting successes
some bad times
but plenty of times to celebrate.
So thanks to the city of Robin Hood
and to all those I’ve met, worked with and befriended there over the years.
In the past few months, I have been involved in a project on responsible research and innovation (RRI). What is RRI? Well, it’s concerned with the “nature and trajectory of new technologies and fields of enquiry” and asks at a fundamental level what research can do for society and who gets to make those decisions. These questions have been formulated into a framework (a freely accessible version is available at the EPSRC website) which obliges researchers to be anticipatory, reflective, inclusive and responsive about their research. RRI is already on the agenda of policy-makers and funders in the UK and the European Union, which means researchers “on the ground” need to start considering the implications it has for their work.
When I was asked to be involved in a project on RRI, I had only read a little about the topic and my understanding was hazy. (I won’t go into more details about the research project I am involved but a summary is available here). As readers of my blog will be aware, I have a background in “green chemistry” and I immediately felt there were some similarities between the two philosophies.
RRI takes a holistic approach, asking researchers to anticipate the potential impacts of a new technology or innovation and to reflect upon their motivations. This was something I immediately recognised. Green chemistry has been called chemistry that is “benign by design”, and anticipating potential risks or problems should start before the first experiment. Studying green chemistry certainly gave me the tools to consider some of the wider implications of the research I was carrying out, but can it go further?
Green chemistry is narrower in its scope than RRI, unsurprisingly focusing on the chemical industry only. It was developed by chemists themselves to respond to the problems they perceived to exist within their own field (whereas RRI has grown out of the social science discipline “science and technology studies”). Like many fields of sustainability, green chemistry seeks to balance the often conflicting demands of the environment, society and economics. Who represents these three groupings in green chemistry is where adopting an RRI philosophy could have its biggest influence on the field.
One of the key drivers for RRI is a desire to engage publics with scientific decision making as early as possible in the emergence of a new technical field. The promise of RRI is that by doing so, it will lead to more socially desirable outcomes and by allowing the public to shape the direction of research it will prevent downstream controversies and opposition. In contrast, green chemistry is focused on technical development and the input of the public remains limited, despite intentions to benefit society as a whole. This attitude is reflected in green chemistry’s twelve guiding principles and the limited range of stakeholders engaged (industry, regulators, policy-makers). This is not to say that green chemistry is ignorant of public attitudes; after all, it emerged as a response to the concerns of the environmental movement. However, the types of engagement and inclusiveness expected by RRI are outside the scope of the green chemistry movement. This needn’t be the case- sustainability places responsibility on everyone, from researchers to the public “end-users”. Green chemists can’t assume that it is only they alone who can assume the role of responsible guardians.
This situation might be about to change. Green chemistry is increasingly coming into contact with research fields where conflicts and controversies exist, e.g. the use of synthetic biology/genetic modification of organisms to synthesise chemicals, 3D printing, nanotechnology and carbon capture and storage. Funders such as the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme are already demanding that RRI approaches are embedded into research areas like synthetic biology and nanotechnology. As world-leading chemistry professor Peter Wassercheid proclaimed in 2013, green chemists must broaden their frame of reference and not just limit their influence to the traditional chemical industries.
There are already attempts to engage green chemistry with a broader range of disciplines and stakeholders. One of the best examples I have heard about was the Green Product Design Network at the University of Oregon, which integrated green chemistry teaching into courses on architectural design, business and journalism. Where exposure to different kinds of thinking is reciprocated between chemists and other students, the exchange of ideas built new problem solving tools. With the scheme being extended to local business, community and policy leaders, it is this type of approach that can allow green chemistry to expand its narrow industrial-scientific focus.
The new Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) in Sustainable Chemistry at the University of Nottingham will provide an interesting opportunity to see if RRI and green chemistry do indeed complement each other. Graduate students enrolled in the CDT will take a broad range of taught courses alongside their research, including on RRI. As RRI goes deeper and broader than green chemistry, young green chemists will have to consider the wider social and political issues related to their work, not just how to transfer into the commercial sphere. They will need to think about engaging with and listening to new stakeholders, proactively seeking other viewpoints and bring them into the process of technology development and innovation.
The dichotomy of chemistry is that while it provides the materials basis for our modern lifestyle, it will forever be associated with acute risks to the environment and people’s health. We chemists often bemoan the the public perception of our discipline, but to avoid the controversies of the past we must try to anticipate the outcomes of our work and continually reflect on why we are doing what we are doing. Green chemistry can and will improve the chemical industry, but in my opinion there is still a lot more to be done. Adopting some of RRI’s framework might be a good place to start.
Post-doc life can be a strange existence. Tied to short, fixed-term contracts and those with academic ambitions expected to move from place-to-place, post-docs are by very nature a transitory species. For those who are happy to shoulder the uncertainty in employment, it can be an exciting opportunity to travel and broaden one’s research expertise. For others, including myself, it has always felt like an imperfect career path that can, and does, discourage many talented individuals from remaining in research.
Within an academic department, post-docs come and go: only a small number stick around for more than a couple of years. As a result, they can be something of an invisible group of employees who have little say in the running of the departments and institutions they work for. Falling between post-grads, who still have access to all the offers, opportunities and organisations available to students, and full-time academic staff, post-docs are left with little representation and support. They are expected to get their heads down and get on with it.
Things are changing, though. When I started my first post-doc position in 2010, the department I was working in had just created its first “post-doc forum”. Its aims were, and are, to improve communication between senior management and research staff, give post-docs a chance to ask questions and air complaints and to provide opportunities for professional development and socialising. I went on to chair the forum for a few months towards the end of my post-doc and have worked with it in other roles over the past two years.
As my involvement in the post-doc forum grew I became more aware of other such organisations across the University of Nottingham and elsewhere. Known as Research Staff Associations (RSAs), these committees vary in size and exist everywhere from small departments through to University and national, even international, level. Some are structured formally and have enough authority to influence management and policy-makers, while others are looser, less formal and focus on organising social and career events. Whatever their structure or aims, all try and support post-docs through this potentially tricky period of their career.
Sounds great, but what has the Post-Doc Forum actually done?
I was recently asked by the University’s RSA to write a short summary of our post-doc forum’s activities and successes. When I thought back and did a bit of research, I was surprised to find it was actually quite a lot.
Typically RSAs will only have limited power to influence change, but that doesn’t mean they can’t make small but important contributions. For example, our forum has been responsible for helping write induction packages for new staff and suggesting improvements to performance review processes. The chairs have been able to represent post-doc staff on management meetings, while senior academics regularly attend forum meetings to communicate policies and decisions that directly affect researchers.
As a dedicated entity to support the post-doc community within the School, the Forum is able to organise events that educate and inform. Career support is often limited or hard to find for research staff and tends to narrowly focus on academic careers only (even if the data suggests only a small percentage will stay on that path). To counter this, the Forum has helped organise career events and disseminate information on opportunities, such as fellowship schemes. It also helps post-docs get their heads out of their fumehoods and network with each other through social events and “coffee mornings.”
As a now established part of the School, the forum is beginning to gain more respect from academic staff. One of the chairs was an integral part of our recent AthenaSWAN self-assessment team and the Forum is often called up to help organise or promote major events.
Are they really needed? Apathy and antipathy
Several years ago, Vitae wrote a guide to research staff associations, outlining their benefits and the challenges that chairs and organisers faced. Apathy is a perennial problem. At a Vitae meeting I attended, one post-doc moaned that only seven colleagues turned up to the first meeting of her RSA, to which others replied “Wow! Seven? We’re lucky if we get four!” Apathy is understandable. The aforementioned transitory nature of post-doc life means that many just won’t have the time or interest to engage in an RSA. Others may see them as mere talking shops with little power to change things, or even question why they need a representative association. RSAs can be viewed negatively by academic staff that don’t see the point of their existence and would rather their researchers spend their time doing the research they’re paid for. There is also a feeling that RSAs are running against the hierarchy of academic life.
As I’ve outlined, however, there are benefits to RSAs, both for the post-doc community and the Chairs themselves, who can gain important professional experience. It is very possible that they will grow in number, particularly as UK universities going through the Athena SWAN process wish to improve the working culture in their departments. They shouldn’t, however, just be an instrumental means to an end for management. The best RSAs will be those that grow from the ground up and sustain themselves through the involvement of committed chairs and members.
If anyone wishes to share their experiences of organising an RSA or are interested in setting one up and want more information, please respond below.
N.B. RSAs do not always just represent post-doctoral researchers but other staff who work in a research-only capacity, including on permanent contracts.
View of the University of Nottingham’s Carbon Neutral Laboratory construction site, early June 2014.
Over the past year I written several posts here and on other sites about our new Carbon Neutral Laboratory (CNL), which was due to open in mid-2015. As many of you may be aware, a dramatic fire at the construction site on Friday, 12th September destroyed most of the building. The fire started about 8.30pm that evening and soon spread to consume the whole building; by the next morning little of the structure was left. Nottingham Fire and Rescue, who did a sterling job of managing the blaze and keeping everyone safe, reported that the fire was one of the largest they’ve had to deal with in recent years. I could see the glow from my own bedroom window 5 miles away.
Last week, I was at the “Circling the Square” conference organised by the University of Nottingham’s Science, Technology and Society research group. The meeting’s purpose was to bring together and start a dialogue between natural and social scientists, policy makers, science communicators and the media and public.
Did it help bridge the gap between these at times disparate communities? Perhaps not as much as hoped, but if the debates during the sessions and subsequent blogs were anything to go by, it did start (or at least reinvigorate) dialogue. The metaphor of circling a square may have been intended to imply smoothing relationships, but at this stage it might be better applied to simply drawing a ring around the issues. We are probably still some way from resolving them.
In a famous piece of media analysis, the average length of a soundbite in a US presidential election was found to have collapsed from 43 seconds in 1968 to just nine by 1988. Although the discovery led to plenty of head-scratching and fears about the “dumbing down” of political discourse, in the end it changed very little.
This post is a copy of a press release I wrote for a recent event on green and sustainable chemistry held at The University of Nottingham in April 2014.
Researchers from across the University of Nottingham came together to talk about how their research could lead to the greener and more sustainable production of chemicals and materials.
Where’s the evidence? A common challenge laid down by scientists and skeptics to politicians who open their mouths and proclaim the latest ill thought out policy.
But the same challenge can also be made to those of us in the science community who call on the government to increase research funding because of our belief that it is critical for the economy. Aware of the need to back up claims with hard evidence, the Campaign for Science & Engineering (CaSE) and several learned societies have commissioned a report to investigate what economic benefits research funding leads to.