Archives

by Kayleigh

Can you communicate your passion for engineering?

Engaging the public and promoting the work that engineers do is vital, so if you can explain an engineering concept in an engaging way to non-scientists in 3 minutes, why not enter FameLab UK?

Forget X-Factor and Britain’s Got Talent, FameLab is apparently the UK’s biggest competition to find the new talent to engage the public in science.

FameLab is open to anyone over 21 years old, working or studying in Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths or Medicine who thinks they’ve got what it takes to be the next Professor Brian Cox.

There are heats up and down the country over the next few weeks where contestants will be judged by a panel of communication experts. If you can’t make one of the heats but want to take part, you can also enter online by uploading a video to YouTube.

The winners of the regional heats get the chance to spend a weekend at a master class preparing for the national final in March 2012. Up for grabs is a £1000 prize along with £750 to spend on a science communication activity. Past winners of FameLab have gone on to travel the world, combining public speaking as well as radio & TV appearances with ongoing research.

Find out more at the website http://famelab.org/uk

by Rob Thornton

Are engineers a diverse ‘people’?

I recently read an article written by Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK, an organisation whose aims I am in complete support of.  In his article Imran comments on the lack of diversity in science and engineering in the UK.

“Science and engineering have serious institutional problems when it comes to diversity.”

But how much is this caused as Imran suggests, on “serious institutional problems”, and how much is down to a historical legacy of a male-dominated environment and simple demographic realities?  Are there in fact other significant factors to blame for this discrepancy?

Now, whilst I accept that diversity is not necessarily a strong point for our professions, I am always a bit wary of using a few headline statistics to emphasise a problem.

“Disabled people make up 5.9% of the total workforce, but only 3.8% in science, engineering, and technology.”

I definitely won’t claim to be an expert on this (!) but I do wonder whether this accounts for the education and/or training required for typical jobs in these sectors, and those disabilities that effectively prevent people from undergoing those sorts of experiences – I want to make clear that that’s not in any way meant to be a disparaging comment, but it is true that there are certain disabilities which prevent people from having any chance of a higher education, for instance.

“Only one in twenty chemistry lecturers isn’t white.”

Again, a pretty disturbing figure it seems – except that over 90% of the population are in fact white according to the last Census, meaning the discrepancy is actually only a few percent, and it’s not too difficult to find some other reasons why this may be the case.

A major one (and one which arguably may get a lot worse after the Government tripled university tuition fees the other week) is the fact that university applications are skewed towards those from higher income backgrounds.  This adversely affects many minority groups, who are often amongst the poorest in our society.  As the science and engineering sectors are so heavily dependent on university-educated graduates, factors such as this could be more to blame, than “serious institutional problems.”

In short: diversity in science and engineering is a problem that we must continue to tackle.  However, whether it’s an institutional problem, or due to a number of other external factors is certainly up for debate.  I’d be keen to hear if people have any experience of ‘institutional problems’ – more specifically, what can we do about them?

by developingengineers

Is carbon capture technology the way to beat climate change?

Carbon capture would reduce carbon emissions by 90% (Photo courtesy of US Fish & Wildlife Service)

Despite the cuts – the government has pledged £1billion towards Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) – half the budget that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne wanted – But is it money well spent?

It’s the governments answer to meet legally binding targets to reduce green-house gases over the next 20 years. CO2 would be captured at large sources such as power stations and factories, then compressed and stored underground.

A modern power station could reduce its carbon output by 90% – but there is a price to pay. Apart from the expense of installation and storage, it would reduce the efficiency of a coal-powered fire station by up to 30%.

But is carbon reduction the best way to tackle global warming? Most scientists divide climate change into four questions – Does climate change exist? Is man a significant contributor? Is now a critical time? And is reducing carbon output the best solution?

While most agree on the first two points – the latter two are a major source of contention. Lady Thatcher – a chemist – was the first world leader to warn of global warming in 1988. She argued for risk management – saying the potential effects merited drastic action.

However, she later doubted such arguments as whether CO2 had more of an environmental effect than solar activity. CCS will cost billions, reduce the efficiency of power stations and inflate the price of energy – would it not be better investing the money in promoting ‘green’ energy sources instead?

by Rob Thornton

Changes to research funding – the risks of short-sighted decisions

On October 20th, the UK Government will publish the Comprehensive Spending Review called by George Osborne after the General Election earlier this year. Cuts of 25-40% are widely expected for all Government departments, leading to fears of lasting and damaging effects to public services and the economy.  But what are the likely implications for research in science and engineering?


Paul Stevenson - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pss/4876189045/

Universities, along with the science and engineering professions are bracing themselves for potential cuts to higher education and research funding – for which Vince Cable‘s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills has responsibility.  Already having suffered an £836m cut in June (including £200m from higher education, £233m from the UK centre for medical research and £82m promised for university teaching budgets), it needs to make savings of a further £5bn to meet its target.

So how will this be achieved, and what effects will it have on research and innovation in the UK?

One idea, that Vince Cable outlined in a speech at Queen Mary, University of London was to refocus funding towards the 54% of research deemed ‘world class’ by the last Research Assessment Exercise in 2008, suggesting the other 46% was unimportant or ‘mediocre’.

“My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international quality – and screen out mediocrity” – Speech by Vince Cable MP

As many academics were quick to point out, Vince (or one of his speech writers) had failed to understand the meanings of the classifications given by the RAE.  Dr. Evan Harris, in an open letter to George Osborne posted on his blog for The Guardian, points out that were funding to be cut from 1* and 2* rated research, this would save a mere £160m (out of over £5bn given by the Government to science research) and cause most damage to the ‘newer, improving universities… which have good links with industry.’  Cutting any more funding would simply damage our international standing and economy in the long term, and at a time when our competitors are investing in research, we risk sliding down the league tables.

Another idea that seems far more likely, though even less appealing, is a significant reduction in university teaching grants, with the Government apparently considering reducing teaching funds from £4.7bn to just £1.2bn annually.  This huge shortfall would presumably be met by an increase in the graduate contribution recommended by the Browne Review, though (as I was arguing earlier this week) this may deter students from poorer backgrounds from entering higher education and would only guarantee financial stability for the top research-intensive universities who are able to charge top whack for their degrees, whilst other institutions face huge shortfalls in funding.

It’s pretty unusual for anything to get scientists and engineers marching on Whitehall, but worries over the Government’s spending review seem to have pushed many over the edge, with groups such as Science is Vital and the Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK openly resisting cuts however they can.  Whatever the outcome of the spending review, one thing certainly seems to be happening: scientists and engineers are vocally and publicly engaging in politics on a level rarely before seen – and about time too.