Professor Marian Dawkins has been presented with the RPSCA’s Sir Patrick Moore Award for her work to improve animal welfare, in a move criticised by some animal rights activists.

Dawkins is head of the Animal Behaviour Research Group at Oxford, and works on animal welfare. The aim is for good farm animal welfare to benefit humans by changing attitudes in developing countries, encouraging people to view animals as sentient beings rather than solely as a source of food.

Speaking to Cherwell, Professor Dawkins said, “My work involves research on animal welfare and working with farmers towards high welfare farming that enables farmers to make a living and for me, winning this award means that animal welfare science is now accepted as a scientific discipline.”

The award has been met with some controversy due to Oxford University’s use of animals in scientific research. The chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Michelle Thew, said of the award, “Humane alternatives already exist so Oxford University should be leading the field in pioneering alternatives to animal experimentation, instead of causing more suffering and distress.”

Oxford was responsible for the deaths of 202,160 animals in 2012, according to a recent Freedom of Information request by Cherwell.

The University defended its use of animal research. “Research using animals is a small part of the University’s overall programme of world-leading biomedical research into solving pressing health problems which cause suffering and death. There is overwhelming international scientific consensus that some animal research remains essential for medical progress. Animal research in the UK is limited and very strictly regulated. Where use of animals is essential, the University is committed to very high standards of animal welfare. Almost all the animals used in Oxford research are mice.”

A medicine student at Somerville, the college where Professor Dawkins is a fellow, told Cherwell, “Marian’s work is important for the advancement of animal rights in the less developed world, and I think it’s a real shame that the benefits of the work she has been carrying out are being overlooked by some simply because of the fact that she is affiliated with Oxford in her work… Clearly the wrongs that are committed are not Marian’s doing, so she should receive the recognition she deserves.”

A Wolfson student disagreed, saying, “I frequently attend protests to prevent animal testing, and strongly believe that it is wrong to do so. Furthermore, any good work that Dawkins does for animals is negated by the fact that she chooses to associate herself with an organisation that thinks it is acceptable to test on animals.

The Oxford Radical Forum was held this weekend for the seventh year, with a well-attended series of lectures, talks, workshops and film screenings hosted by Wadham College.

Speakers included Trenton Oldfield, the notorious protestor who disturbed the 2012 Oxford–Cambridge boat race, alongside literary theorist and public intellectual Terry Eagleton, who also spoke at the 2012 forum. Eagleton gave a talk entitled ‘The Death of God and the War on Terror’, in which he expanded on his criticism of the ‘New Atheism’ of Richard Dawkins. Other speakers included Vanessa Baird, editor of the New Internationalist magazine, who raised questions about the independence of electronic communication as it becomes increasingly commercialised, and Linda Bellos, an intersectional feminist, who spoke about “feminism, labour and Marxism.”

The Oxford Radical Forum describes itself as “a completely free and open annual festival of radical ideas and culture. Each year leading critics, authors and activists spark critical thought and debate about how we understand the world and struggle to change it.” It aims to address, “the meaning of current events in Egypt and Syria, the fight against sexism, racism and homophobia, radical political and labour projects… and of course the weather.”

Events were free of charge and open to the public, covering topics ranging from political economy, intersectionality, feminism, and the media, to drone warfare, arms divestment, sex work, and current events in Latin America and the Arab world. There was also a noticeable international presence throughout the weekend, with talks on Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, the Arab uprisings and Latin America taking place, many by citizens of those countries.

Social media appeared to help the Forum gain its 500 attendees, with multiple events on Facebook attracting record numbers. The event was hosted at Wadham, described by one attendee as “trusty bastion of all that is hip and happenin’ in Ox.”

Kate Guariento, one of the organisers of the event, commented, “there was an immense feeling of satisfaction at how successful this year’s forum had been.”

Xavier Cohen, another co-organiser, also praised the 2012 Radical Forum. “I was sixteen at the time and it was a formative experience for me, the beginning of my political journey. It’s great to think that two years on, from that person who sat there baffled not knowing anything about left wing theory or radical ideas at all, I’m now so involved and have learnt so much.”

Oxford found itself at centre of BBC TV license fee debate last week, as the University’s journalism institute released a study on BBC funding, and the BBC Director-General addressed the Oxford Media Convention.

Researchers at Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that, in the absence of the BBC, British consumers could expect less value for money, and the investment in UK television would be significantly lower.

The study, entitled ‘What if there were no BBC television?’, is intended to contribute to the debate on BBC funding, ahead of its charter renewal in 2016. The study found that investment in first-run UK television content could fall by up to 50%.

Professor Patrick Barwise, who authored the study, told Cherwell, “We wanted to test the widespread presumption that consumers would be better served if the BBC were smaller and provided only narrowly defined public service programmes that the market won’t. Our analysis shows the opposite”.

He continued, “The main issue is to ensure that the BBC itself is properly funded beyond 2016. That’s in the best interest of the public as both consumers and citizens, and very much in the interest of UK programme producers.”

The study was released in the same week as as BBC Director-General Tony Hall defended the licence fee in his speech to the Oxford Media Convention. Speaking last Wednesday, he said, “every day the BBC is actively chosen by the British public close to 150 million times. Every day, the average use of the BBC is over six hours per household. Each hour of that consumption costs each person in the household three pence. I challenge anyone to find better value for money than that for high-quality advertising-free content”.

He continued, “Twenty years ago, the BBC received nearly 40% of all the revenues in broadcasting. Now the figure is around a quarter – 25% – a much smaller part of the media market. Twenty years ago, the licence fee was over £147 in today’s money – now it’s a bit lower. But look what you get. Twenty years ago, we had two TV stations, five national radio stations, and local and Nations radio. Now we deliver four times more television channels, twice as many national radio stations, impressive web services and the iPlayer”.

Some polls have shown that up to 70% of people want to abolish the BBC funding through the TV licencing fee.

One Hertford student commented, “I think the BBC makes a valuable contribution to Britain. I like the BBC the most out of all the channels, and I think I prefer BBC to many of the alternatives.”

An Oxford academic has come out in opposition to the current UK visa system. Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies and fellow at St Anthony’s college made several comments on David Cameron and the coalition’s policies regarding immigration and visa control, calling it “stupid, incoherent, short-sighted, cack-handed, intrusive and counter-productive.”

Professor Garton Ash’s comments come in light of stringent new rules regarding international students coming to the UK to study. Students must now provide qualifications confirming their fluency in English and financial credentials to prove that they can pay for their course, as well as proof of a place to study. This is known as a Tier 4 visa and is required for any non-EU student to study at a UK University.

This, he claims, has led to a decrease in the numbers of international students coming here to study. An example cited was the 24% drop in students coming from India in the academic year 2013/2014.

He criticised David Cameron’s policy, saying it was a “careless, populist election promise”,  in reference to Cameron’s promise to reduce migration from the hundreds of thousands of incoming migrants to the tens of thousands.

The Home Office also came under attack for its treatment of international students. Garton Ash cited incidents such as arbitrary and unfair English tests, the retention of students’ passports for months at a time and students having to leave the country literally the day after the end of their course.

Garton Ash also argued that international students should not be considered in the same category as asylum seekers, “The student questions must be addressed on its own merits”. If incoming and outgoing migrants were counted more accurately then, in Garton Ash’s words “student numbers would be treated separately”.

He highlighted the importance of international students to the UK in economic terms and in the prestige that they bring to our University sector. He underlined the critical nature of the higher education sector to the UK economy and the UK’s reputation, saying, “hosting foreign students has a cost but the UK’s universities are a vital part of Britain’s soft power, along with film, literature, music, sport and the BBC.”

Some Oxford students have expressed their agreement on the basis of the importance of international students, both to the UK and to their home country.

Worried about the damage that will be done to the learning environment at UK universities, Shivani Haria, PPE Society Social Secretary, said, “it does seem that the coalition is trying to score cheap political points without being honest to the public. By restricting the pool of students you not only homogenise the student population but the UK may lose out on the contributions of some of the best students.”

However, she also argued for the prioritisation of asylum seekers over international students, “Whilst it would be best if we could allow both asylum seekers and students into this country from an ethical point of view we need to prioritise providing a home for people whose human rights are being abused over those who are coming for a better education”.

Singapore-based biochemist Amrita Dasgupta stressed the importance of the intercultural dimension brought to a University by international students, telling Cherwell, “A better understanding of different cultures will result in better cooperation between people, and by extension countries”. She also underlined the economic benefits of international students: “local businesses generate huge amounts of revenue from us as well I believe, whether it be private student accommodation sites or aeroplane companies due to large amounts of travel”.

Finally she warned of the potential loss to be made in the visa system itself, if visas were made any more expensive or difficult to get, “Visa fees are a substantial amount of money, the government itself, I believe, would stand to lose quite a lot of money in visa fees if it became more expensive and difficult to apply for them.”

Hertford College has voted unanimously to double its charity budget, after its Treasurer called for more money to be allotted to charitable causes.

Hertford JCR Treasurer James Chawner, who proposed the motion, told Cherwell, “When creating Hertford’s 2014 budget, I felt that more of it should go to charity. Hertford is lucky to have many philanthropic JCR members – for example, a naked calendar recently raised £910 – so it makes sense that our JCR expenditure would reflect that”.

The motion, passed in 5th week, will commit £800 to charitable causes from the JCR’s main account, in addition to the £800 allotted from its charities account.

Chawner explained, “Before the motion JCR members payed an optional amount of £2 a term to charity on their battels, generating roughly £800 a term. My motion ‘matches’ that as a contribution from the JCR budget, meaning that the undergraduate body is effectively giving £1600 a term to charities, before initiatives organised by our charity reps and individuals in the JCR are even taken into account. The JCR’s main revenue stream is from college, it’s a small proportion of students tuition fees”.

Chawner continued, “I was thrilled when the motion was passed unanimously. When put in the context of our annual budget expenditure, it’s a very manageable amount, and it’s sustainable. Students certainly won’t be receiving higher battels as a result of this motion, and it won’t have a significant impact on any of the other facilities or services that the JCR provides”.

An amendment to the motion also divided decision making for charitable spending between the 5th and 8th week JCR meetings, meaning all the decisions about charity spending would not be made at one meeting alone.

JCR President Josh Platt told Cherwell, “We were delighted that the JCR agreed to double our charities budget, proving nice and for all that Hertford is a haven of progressive values. This money will do an amazing amount of good in Oxford and around the world, and it’s fantastic that Hertford is now at the forefront of all the charity work which goes on across the university, in colleges and through RAG”.

Chawner said, “JCR members are encouraged to suggest which charities should receive a donation. These range from efficient global organisations, to dynamic local charities that students have active roles in”.

One Hertford geographer said, “I really hope that this goes some way to putting Hertford on the map. It’s nice to know that we are doing some good in the world, and it’s even better that it’s not going on our battels”.