Features

The annual meeting of China’s legislature, the National People’s Congress, is taking place in Beijing this week. The meeting of China’s national legislature, which runs until March 15, is often seen as a guide for how China’s leadership is thinking.

Rana Mitter, who is Professor of the History and Politics of Modern China and director of the University of Oxford’s China Centre, expects that housing and the environment will be among the main themes of meeting.

‘A lot of the real stuff is done behind the scenes but I would expect certain themes to be spoken about,’ he says. ‘One of those is housing. As in many countries around the world, housing is becoming increasingly expensive for China’s middle class and much of the property growth in China has been fuelled by a boom in credit, which isn’t sustainable, so I’d expect to see some questions about the economy and how housing fits into that.

‘Something else they should also be talking about is the environment. It is well known that China’s cities are now suffering from incredibly bad pollution, the kind of thing that can actually force people not to go outside because they may immediately have a problem with breathing and the Chinese government knows that is not sustainable in the long term, so I hope the NPC will be talking about ways to tackle those issues.’

Professor Mitter also discussed a recent BBC story in which the reporter had his camera damaged and was forced to sign a confession for trying to interview a ‘petitioner’ – that is, someone who visits Beijing to take their grievances to the State Bureau of Letters and Calls because they have been denied justice through their local courts.

Professor Mitter says this heavy-handed response is related to the holding of the National People’s Congress. ‘This is what happens right around major events like this - Beijing goes on lockdown, so it’s disheartening but not entirely surprising to see how swiftly they have cracked down on the petitioners,’ he says. ‘At other times of the year, and particularly outside Beijing at the local level in China, you will see a certain amount more success.

‘There are various mechanisms that the petitioners can use – not just using a letter but also these days using social media and e-government to try and make their complaints known. So while it is patchy and not the same as you would have in a liberal democracy such as the UK, there is a certain amount of permeability in the system to allow complaints to get through.’

He adds that the explosion of the internet in China has made it easier for people to share and request information. ‘One of the great transformations of conversation in China in the last five to ten years has been the growth of the internet,’ he says.

‘One of the reasons it has been so important is that official media is censored strongly so trying to get a story in the People’s Daily, the main Party newspaper, would not be the best way to investigate a story. But the slightly freer media or the media that is attached to some of the very popular video sites that have millions and millions of viewers in China can be an effective way of doing that.’

Professor Mitter was speaking to the BBC’s TV programme, Impact Asia with Mishal Husain.

In a guest blog, Dr Oliver van Hecke, DPhil student in Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and Oxfordshire GP, explains why genetics may determine whether someone experiences multiple chronic diseases.

Chronic pain, depression and heart disease are three of the commonest causes of disability, and are becoming more prevalent in the population. Increasingly, some people will suffer from one or several of these long-term health problems in their lifetime, which is known as multimorbidity, but why? Is this simply down to bad luck or could there be an underlying cause, perhaps due to a shared familial risk, and/or genetic factors?

While we know that age, gender, social circumstances and lifestyle increase someone’s vulnerability to multiple causes of disability, research has now revealed that genetics can indeed play a role in determining whether someone experiences multiple chronic illnesses.

The new study, which we were involved with along with colleagues at the University of Dundee and Kings College, London, examined two major existing population cohorts (Generation Scotland and TwinsUK), for the likelihood of chronic pain, depression and heart disease co-occurring in both individuals and in their siblings. We found that people who had one of these illnesses were much more likely to have one or both of the other illnesses.

Interestingly, we identified a sibling link – the brothers or sisters of people with one of these illnesses were much more likely to have one of the other illnesses too, even after allowing for known social and demographic factors. For example, siblings of people with heart disease were twice as likely to have chronic pain, while siblings of those with depression were twice as likely to suffer from heart disease.

Using the twins data, we were able to show that genetics contributed to the co-occurrence of chronic widespread pain and heart disease in twins, in addition to important environmental contributions.

The finding that genes likely play a key role in determining whether someone experiences multiple chronic illnesses provides researchers new avenues to explore the underlying biological mechanisms between different conditions. Of course, as both a researcher and a clinician I realise it will always be important to address the social and demographic factors that cause disability and comorbidity, such as deprivation for example. However this new insight into the shared genetics of comorbidities may enable us to recognise these conditions earlier in the community. This would, in turn, allow us to focus on preventative therapies for these patients by targeting the underlying causes (such as stress or health inequalities) rather than the visible symptoms of the condition itself.

The full study, ‘Chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease linked through a shared genetic predisposition: Analysis of a family-based cohort and twin study,’ can be read in the journal PLOS ONE.

A twice-weekly academic writing group which was set up for PhD students and early career researchers at Oxford University has been credited with boosting productivity and reducing stress.

The group's founder is Dr Alice Kelly, the Harmsworth Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Rothermere American Institute. In a guest post, she tells the story of the writing group:

'Most people need structure, accountability and discipline if they are to work productively. But this is exactly what disappears when highly qualified, often perfectionistic people start the rewarding but lengthy and lonely PhD process.

This is especially true in the humanities, where, in contrast to the more communal research environment that scientific teams enjoy, study is often solitary. I believe that universities can, and should, do much more to generate a sense of group motivation, camaraderie and peer support among early career scholars in the humanities.

I convene a group of postgraduate students and early career researchers to write together for three hours twice a week. After coffee, I ask everyone to share their goals for the first 75-minute session with their neighbour. Goals must be specific, realistic and communicable, such as writing 250 words or reworking a particularly problematic paragraph. I set an alarm and remind everyone not to check email or social media. When the alarm goes off, everyone checks in with their partner about whether or not they achieved their goal. After a break, we do it again. After our Friday morning sessions, we go for lunch together. And that’s it.

Yet the impact of the group in terms of writing productivity, reducing student stress and promoting a sense of community has been profound – beyond what even I had anticipated when I first introduced these sessions at the interdisciplinary Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH) in October 2015. Since its beginning, the group has been enormously popular and is always oversubscribed. I have become convinced that such writing groups are an affordable and highly effective way of reducing early career isolation and improving mental health, and could be implemented more widely.

Participants reported the positive effects in two anonymous surveys for our humanities division. They value the sessions’ imposition of routine, realism about expectations and embodiment of the principle that thinking happens through, not before, writing (known as the “writing as a laboratory” model). Respondents were pleasantly surprised at their own productivity. One said: “I never thought I could accomplish so much in one hour, if I really committed, without interruptions”.

Another said: “It seems I lost the fear of finishing things when I was surrounded by other people.” Participants also reported adopting their newly established good habits outside the sessions.

Most evident, however, was respondents’ improved sense of morale and peer support. One noted that “the PhD can be such an isolating experience; it’s very calming to come to a place where, twice a week, we’re reminded that working independently doesn’t have to mean working alone”. Another referred to the group as “an invaluable resource that should be mandatory for all PhDs”.

The writing group offers, for six hours a week, what most workers get every day: a start time, a stop time and peer pressure not to procrastinate on the internet. Over a term’s worth of attendance, this produces serious results.

One participant had “rewritten a draft thesis chapter, written a conference abstract, edited two reviews for an online publication, finished two book reviews and edited several chapters of a volume”.

My role in the group varies between friend, peer, disciplinarian, mentor, stand-in supervisor, and a regular fixture offering some stability and continuity. If people don’t show up, I hold them accountable. If they are struggling with a piece of writing, I talk them through it.

The group has unexpectedly become an informal forum for all the academic questions we’re not sure who else to ask about, and has therefore had a serious impact on pastoral care through peer support.

As someone who worked long hours through the four years of my PhD – in exhausting periods of “binge writing” and unnecessarily time-consuming revisions – I am now a vocal advocate of short bursts of focused attention and writing as a routine practice, with mandatory time off from academic work.

One survey respondent noted that the group “has given me the sense that I have a working week and am not expected to work 24/7; it has helped me treat my degree as a job”.

As the group has developed, I have investigated strategies to make the sessions more effective. One idea was to organise a manual or sensory activity (colouring in or listening to music, for instance) during the break; another was to make participants set regular goals on index cards and to add a gold star when they achieve them.

Writing marathons – two three-hour sessions, separated by lunch – are useful for meeting end-of-term deadlines. The combination of accountability and reward (group celebrations at the end of a goal period, or when somebody submits their dissertation) motivates participants both to push themselves and to be pleased with their progress.

There is surprisingly little literature on the benefits of writing in group settings. Very helpful texts, such as Eviatar Zerubavel’s The Clockwork Muse (1999) and Paul Silvia’s How to Write a Lot (2007), advocate scheduled writing, goal setting and monitoring progress, but do not address the high levels of self-discipline needed for regular independent writing that a group provides.

Meanwhile, the literature considering writing groups, such as Rowena Murray and Sarah Moore’s The Handbook of Academic Writing (2006) or Claire Aitchison and Cally Guerin’s volume Writing Groups for Doctoral Education and Beyond (2014), promotes them for collaborative writing or peer review purposes, rather than improved morale and community.

Amid mounting demands for “outputs” and increasing evidence of chronic stress and mental health problems among academics, having an academic writing group at every university could be a simple yet powerful way of making the task of writing more productive and rewarding for the next generation of scholars.'

This article was originally published in the Times Higher Education.

The decibel level was raised at a sound-themed event at the Ashmolean Museum on Friday night (3 March).

SUPERSONIC was the latest event in the Museum's popular 'LiveFriday' series, and it involved Oxford University’s Music Faculty, The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH), Oxford Contemporary Music, and Oxford Brookes University’s Sonic Art Research Unit (SARU).

On the night, there were bite-sized lectures from many academics from the University’s Music Faculty, including Professor Eric Clarke.

‘LiveFriday’s ‘Supersonic’ theme was a great opportunity to showcase a whole variety of fascinating activities in and around sound, sound-art and music, involving the Oxford Faculty of Music, Oxford Contemporary Music and other guests and contributors,’ says Professor Clarke.

‘There are no human cultures without music - so music is as defining of what it is to be human as anything else. What better way to explore and acknowledge that fantastic human attribute than by coming to the wonderful Ashmolean Museum, and hearing, seeing and participating in all the musical performances, workshops and talks that will be on offer.’

Professor Clarke told an attentive audience about his new research into the link between music, empathy and cultural understanding. ‘Our research demonstrated that just listening to the music of other cultures can have significant effects on people’s more general cultural attitudes,’ he said.

There were performances from student electronic ensembles such as Sal Para (Tremor Recordings) and Wandering Wires.There were sound art installations throughout the museum, and an interactive songwriting workshop.

Perhaps the most eye-catching part of the event was a ‘swinging’ concert grand piano suspended high above the ground in the Ashmolean’s atrium.

As part of our Women in Science series, ScienceBlog meets Professor Tamsin Mather, a volcanologist in the Department of Earth Sciences at Oxford University. She discusses her professional journey to date, including recent work with the education initiative Votes for Schools, and why science is the best game around.

What is a typical day in the life of a volcanologist like?

Volcanology is incredibly varied, so there is no typical day. Some days I am out in the field, gathering samples from volcanoes and others I’ll be in the lab, giving lectures, or out in the community, encouraging people to take an interest in science.

What has your professional highlight been to date?

There have been lots, but one of the most exciting was finding fixed nitrogen in volcanic plumes in Nicaragua.

All living things need nitrogen to survive. Although Earth’s atmosphere is mainly made up of nitrogen, its atoms are very tightly bonded into molecules, so we can’t use it.  To do so, you need something to trigger their separation. For example, when lightning strikes, the heat prompts atmospheric nitrogen to react with oxygen, forming nitrogen oxides or “fixed nitrogen”. We discovered that above lava lakes, volcanic heat can have the same effect.

Volcanology is incredibly varied. Some days I am out in the field, gathering samples from volcanoes and others I’ll be in the lab, giving lectures, or out in the community, encouraging people to take an interest in science.

Why was the discovery so interesting?

The research shows how volcanoes have played a role in the evolution of the planet and the emergence and development of life.

But that particular trip looms large in my memory because we were robbed while getting the data. I remember it vividly, we had waited all day at the crater edge for the plume to settle, but the sun set before we had a chance to take our measurements. We went back to the national park early the next day, before the security guards arrived, and got robbed at gun point. In retrospect we should have known better, but excitement got the better of us. A terrifying experience but thankfully no one got hurt. We didn’t even get great data that day in the end.

A shot of Professor Mather at the top of Masaya volcano, Nicaragua, deploying diffusion tubes to measure gas concentration levels. Copy Right: Tamsin Mather

How did you come to specialise in volcanology?

By mistake. When applying for my PhD I put ocean chemistry as my first choice, but I was stumped for my second choice, so browsed the list of topics and the atmospheric chemistry of volcanic plumes stood out to me. I got more and more excited as I read about it, and ended up switching it from my second to first choice. I haven’t looked back.

Do you think being a woman in science holds any particular challenges?

The statistics bear it out - we are still in the minority. There are lots more women in more junior levels now and that will filter through eventually. I definitely would have appreciated more visible female scientist role models when I was younger, but I think the perception of science as a male pursuit is eroding.

 For instance, I used to love Space LEGO, but there wasn’t much diversity in the astronaut characters that came with the kits then. Now, my primary school age daughter loves it too, and the kits are much more diverse. I even have the all-female Research Institute kit in my office. The landscape has changed a lot in the last 20 years, but there is still more to be done.

There isn’t just one solution. Whether in relation to gender or ethnic diversity in science, it is a multi-component problem. If someone is the only woman or ethnic minority in their group, they may feel there is no future role for them. There are so many influencing factors in this situation and they are not all easily articulated or solved.

 Science is the best game around. You could be building bridges, curing a disease, developing new apps or climbing a volcano – the world is your oyster. I get paid to discover new things about our planet every day, how cool is that?!

What do you think can be done to encourage more diversity in science?

One of the key challenges for women in academia is the transition from PhD student, to post doc level and on to permanent faculty member. Often at that stage scientists have to relocate frequently. Some of my female contemporaries found this difficult and wanted more stability. Maybe they wanted to be close to a partner, or were thinking about having children. That is not an easy problem to solve and it can be difficult for men too.

There are things that can be done to make this journey easier. Programmes that provide flexible working patterns for outstanding scientists, like the Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship scheme, work well, for instance.

The all-female LEGO Research Institute collection, sits in pride of place on Professor Mather's office bookshelf, as a testament to how far gender bias in science has evolved. Copy Right: Tamsin Mather

What are you working on at the moment?

We are studying the volcanoes of the Rift Valley in Ethiopia. Little is known about the history of these volcanoes and how often they erupt. But by measuring the layers of ash that have deposited around them, we can learn more about past and present volcanic activity. It’s possible these volcanoes could be used as energy sources in the future and we are investigating their potential for geothermal development.

How did you get started in science?

I always found it fun and really wanted to be an astronaut, but when I was seven I had an ear operation which killed that dream.

How did you come to be involved in Votes for Schools, the education initiative supporting children to have informed opinions?

It’s a great way to get young people thinking critically about the difference between opinions and facts. We have to empower young people and make sure they realise why having a voice matters. It is important to have an informed opinion, no matter your age. I was asked to join the Votes for Schools team, visiting Packmoor Ormiston Academy to talk about being a female scientist and to launch the primary school version of the scheme.

How did the children respond to your question, ‘Do we need more female scientists and engineers?’

The majority (61%) felt that there were not enough female scientists. The statistics of under-representation, arguments about diverse teams performing better, and the importance of engaging the whole of society in science were key here. Those that responded no, felt women have the right to choose what they want to be, a scientist or otherwise. Cultural background came into play as well, with some saying that women should stay at home.

Professor Tamsin Mather, volcanologist and Professor of Earth Sciences at Oxford University. Copy Right: Tamsin Mather

What were your main takeaways from working with the initiative?

Questions like ‘do you ever work on metamorphic as well as igneous rock?’ really surprised me, and the enthusiasm of staff and children alike was fantastic. They really understood the issues and were not afraid to express their opinions. Technology is so central to our lives now, compared to when I was at school. Smart phones and computer games have become key to how we socialise and have fun. Science and technology are certainly not just for geeks anymore!

 What advice would you give to someone considering a career in STEM?

Do it! It’s the best game around. There are so many doors that a career in STEM opens for you. You could be building bridges, curing a disease, developing new computer games or apps or climbing a volcano – the world is your oyster. I get paid to discover new things about our planet every day, how cool is that?!

Gas sampling in Ethiopia. Copy Right: Tamsin Mather