Every Thursday lunchtime, a small contingent of protestors from the animal rights advocacy group, SPEAK, assembles outside the Biomedical Sciences Building to protest against the use of animals in scientific research at Oxford University. They stand holding signs with pictures of bloody, mauled monkeys, rats and mice, urging passers-by to sign petitions to end the use of animals in medical research in Oxford.
This week, following a video report in which the BBC showed footage from within the Biomedical Sciences Building for the first time, Cherwell decided to dig deeper into the issues surrounding animal testing.

Protests against animal testing in Oxford are frequent. In November 2006, Mel Broughton targeted the University with petrol bombs to protest against animal testing in Oxford, and was subsequently convicted to 10 years of jail. Demonstrations in Oxford are frequent, and often gather hundreds of people to protest against the University’s stance on an issue which has wide-reaching national connotations.

Following numerous threats, the contractor in charge of the construction of the Biomedical Sciences building was forced to paralyse the works in 2004, but the construction was resumed eighteen months later, and in 2009, the building became fully operational.

50,000 mice and 23 macaque monkeys are currently held in the Biomedical Sciences Building. Primates account for 0.5% of the animals kept in Oxford University labs. As part of medical research, surgery – or what campaigners refer to as ‘vivisection’ – is performed on many of these animals in order to test for a number of diseases and potential cures. Oxford does not carry out pharmaceutical or cosmetic testing, which was banned by the European Union in 2009. The issue of whether these tests carried out on animals are essential for the advancement of science and medicine lies at the heart of what is a very delicate national debate.

At the centre of the debate is a question of morals and ethics – and whether it is justifiable to inflict a degree of pain on animals if the medical benefits are considerable. The law, outlined by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and enforced through strict guidelines by the Home Office, allows for the assumption that a limited amount of animal testing can benefit scientific research, although the degree of pain and the number of animals which institutions are allowed to test is strictly supervised. Animal rights campaigners, however, call for a change in this law.

Oxford is one of 40 institutions in the UK which has a license to perform animal tests according to these guidelines. Much of the research carried out in Oxford is supported by the Wellcome Trust, which provides grants and support for academics engaged in animal research.
A freedom of information request carried out by C+ revealed that, in 2012, Oxford University used 192,000 rodents, 6,120 animals classified as Fish/Amphibians/Reptiles, 155 birds, 3,074 rats, and 29 non-human primates.

The Home Office previously required all animal testing license holders to break down the number of scientific procedures according to the level of pain inflicted on the animal being tested. The same Freedom of Information request revealed that the majority (60%) of procedures carried out by Oxford University are classified as inflicting “moderate” pain on the animal, whilst 33% of these were “mild”, 4% “substantial” and 3% unclassified.

A spokesperson for SPEAK told C+ that, “SPEAK has lost count of the number of people who have said ‘thank goodness you are still here’, and SPEAK will continue to be there on South Parks Road every Thursday afternoon until Oxford University moves into the 21st century and adopts the numerous, scientific, forward-thinking humane methods for medical advancement which do not involve the use of animals.”

Tom Holder, a spokesperson for pressure group Speaking of Research, outlined his organisation’s advocacy of animal testing. “Speaking of Research aims to provide information on the vital role of animals in the development of modern medical and veterinary treatments.”

He continued, “Born out of the Oxford-based Pro-Test student movement we aim to dispel the misinformation surrounding this issue. It is hard to deny the important role of animals in research when we consider modern treatments like Herceptin, a humanised mouse protein – impossible to develop without animal research – which has contributed to a 20% rise in 5-year survival rates for breast cancer in the past two decades.”

An Oxford University spokesperson also described the university’s commitment to medical research. “The University’s medical research is devoted to identifying the causes of disease, improving diagnosis and prevention, and developing effective treatments and cures. Diseases where millions of lives can be saved – such as cancer, stroke, malaria and HIV – are of particular interest. Oxford also has world-leading research programmes in heart disease, musculoskeletal disorders such as arthritis and osteoporosis, and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%9102%%[/mm-hide-text]

Nevertheless, Michelle Thew, CEO of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), condemned the extent of Oxford’s animal research. “The BUAV fully supports the need for scientific research, not least into finding cures for human illness and diseases. However, this should not be achieved by deliberately inflicting suffering on animals in experiments. Our objection to animal testing is primarily ethical, but there is also a large and growing body of evidence about the scientific unreliability of animal experiments.

“As long as animals are used in experiments, we will continue to argue for greater openness about what goes on in laboratories. FOI gives us the right to ask any public sector organisation for all the recorded information they have on any subject. Let’s make sure we keep it that way and work for greater transparency.”

A spokesperson for Understanding Animal Research also pointed out that since 1986 it has been illegal to use an animal for research if there is an alternative, noting the fact that animals are tested “is testament to the absence of practicable alternatives.”

Oxford is one of a total of forty institutions across the country to rely on animal testing for scientific research. Imperial College London last month attracted controversy when a report by a panel of independent scientists identified a lack of “adequate operational, leadership, management, training, supervisory and ethical review systems” at the university. The report followed an undercover investigation last April by the animal rights group British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). Professor Steve Brown, from the MRC Mammalian Genetics Unit, who chaired the report, said the report includes lessons to be learned by all researchers who utilise animal testing: “While our focus has been on Imperial College, the committee’s recommendations should serve as a useful framework for other institutions to review their policies and practices.”

One of the main recent developments in animal testing regards the increased use of genetically modified animals – a trend which, according to Marcel Leist, Doerenkamp-Zbinden Chair of Alternatives to Animal Experimentation at the University of Konstanz, extends across Europe. He told Cherwell that although “there is a general trend for reduced numbers of traditional animals, the situation is different for transgenic animals. Their use is skyrocketing.

“They make up about a third of all animals used in Germany, and they compensate or overcompensate the reduced use of animals in all other areas. There is good success in reducing the number of test animals in many areas, but other areas (especially basic research) are increasing instead.”

This rise in the use of genetically modified animals is reflected in recent stats from the Home Office relating to scientific procedures on animals in Great Britain. Their data shows that there were 4.11 million scientific procedures on animals started in 2012, an increase 8% on 2011.
The rise was mainly attributable to an increase of 363,100 (+22%) in the breeding of genetically modified animals and harmful mutants.

An Exeter Fresher was handcuffed and put into a police car last Thursday night after being thrown out of The Bridge and getting into an altercation with one of the club’s bouncers.

The student, who asked to remain anonymous, was forcefully ejected from the nightclub late on Thursday evening, after engaging in rowdy behaviour. Consequently, he got involved in a scuffle with the doorman, at which point the police were called in to drive him back to college.

Phil Davidson, owner of The Bridge, explained, “If a student had been behaving badly in the club he would have been asked to leave. Police are often in attendance on Hythe Bridge St. and will assist our door staff with any problem.”

He continued, “In this case there was no physical damage suffered and it would seem that the police took the view that for this student’s own safety they ought to escort him back to his college.”

The student, who was immediately handcuffed, was reportedly abusive towards the officers, shouting “fuck the police” while detained in the police car.
Looking back on the incident, he told Cherwell, “I have no recollection of the event whatsoever: I only realised what happened when, looking for my Bod Card in my pocket to go to brunch the next day (I misakenly thought it was Saturday), I found a note from the police instead describing me as ‘disorderly, intoxicated and argumentative’… At least I knew that they got the right guy.”

An Exeter first year, who was an eyewitness to the events, said, “That’s a pretty handy way of getting back to college! If only it had been after the night out.”

Likewise, another eyewitness from St Benet’s said, “Can’t believe he got put in handcuffs: sign of a good night. Though it’s never a good idea to go head-to-head with a bouncer.”

The student’s Thursday night antics were also met with acclaim from some Oxford graduates. A fresher from St Cross stated, “This almost rivals the Daily Mail story of the Odham teen waking up in Paris. I guess Oxford undergraduates really know how to party.”

A Keble second year, who frequents The Bridge, thought the student’s behaviour was “reprehensible”. She told Cherwell, “I think it’s ridiculous how rowdy students get on nights out. Bouncers have loads to put up with.”

Similarly, a student from Wolfson remarked, “My Thursday nights involve long bouts of solitude churning out page after page of dissertation material. Obviously, something went wrong somewhere along the line. Perhaps I should start coming to Exeter more.”

The Exeter student confirmed, “To be honest, it seems to be becoming quite standard for fresher classicists at Exeter to get arrested after the arrest at Freud’s in Freshers’ Week: only a few more of us to go now.”

He went on, “Thankfully I didn’t get a criminal record, though I might have to give Bridge a miss for the next couple of weeks, and maybe give some of the more sketchy clubs a try instead.”

Oxford University, OUSU, and college deans have condemned the drinking craze NekNominate, after the number of students participating increased.

a University spokesperson said of NekNominate, “The University encourages students who consume alcohol to do so responsibly. It is difficult to imagine that drinking large quantities of alcohol in such a short space of time could fall within any definition of responsible drinking.”

Tom Rutland, the current OUSU President, was similarly negative about the proliferation of NekNominate videos, commenting that, “‘The NekNominate craze is foolish and dangerous. Downing a pint or more of spirits, as just one example of the videos I’ve seen, is extremely dangerous and has lead to serious harm and even deaths. I think that the vast majority of Oxford students recognise the idiocy of the craze and I’ve seen a couple of amusing, ironic takes on it.”

Various students pre-eminent in Oxford societies have also been drawn into the craze. Union president-elect Ben Sullivan uploaded a video of himself downing a pint of beer and port on to Facebook, and former LMH JCR President Fergus Imrie also polished off a pint of beer in rapid time for his video.

Over the past two weeks, NekNominate stunts around Oxford have escalated. One student who wishes to remain anonymous recorded himself finishing a pint whilst defecating on the Quad of Downing College Cambridge; another third year student stripped to his boxers and drank a pint outside the Radcliffe Camera. One student who did not wish to drink alcohol drank his own semen when fulfilling his NekNomination.

In Keble College, NekNominations took place in the college library and chapel. The Dean of Keble College told Cherwell, “The college is very concerned about the potential for physical harm resulting from NekNomination, in particular because of the coercion to consume alcohol. This behaviour is very strongly discouraged and both the JCR and MCR have been helping to spread the word about the dangers associated with this trend.”

Likewise, Jamie Wells, the OUSU Health and Welfare rep, stressed his condemnation of the trend and encouraged students who had been nominated to think carefully before partaking, “‘We realise the potentially harmful effect of viral crazes like neknominate and encourage all students to act responsibly in their consumption of alcohol. There is no harm in ignoring a ‘nomination’, as many people already do, and students should not feel under pressure to make one of these videos.”

George Greenwood, a third year at Christ Church who took part in the craze, took a more positive approach: “I think that generally NekNomination is an entertaining form of fun among friends, if treated sensibly. However, as we have seen in some tragic cases, social pressure and laddish one-upmanship can encourage some to dangerously abuse alcohol, and Tom is right to raise this issue. The best NekNomination that I have seen does not involve alcohol at all, consisting of one of my friends failing miserably to down a litre of sparkling water. Quite frankly, watching someone drink a pint of vodka and then throw up in an underpass is a bit grim.”

One student at Christ Church who was filmed downing a pint of wine at the top of St Mary’s, said, “I really think NekNominations are pretty harmless compared to the vast majority of drinking games. Unlike most drinking games, your nomination is only over the internet, so there is far less immediate peer pressure than there is if you are at a party/crewdate and asked to down shot after shot. You also have 24 hours to decide whether you want to participate or not, so you’ve got plenty of time to think it over.

Recent days have seen a new trend based on NekNominate emerge, where people are nominated to do a random act of kindness. Known as RAKNominate, it has proved a popular alternative. Acts vary from giving scouts a bunch of flowers to giving food to homeless people on the streets of Oxford. Megan, a first year student at Regent’s Park said of RAK Nominate, “It’s a force for good in a world ruined by laddish culture and binge drinking, epitomised by NekNominate.”

Morgan Harries, a first year English student, agreed with criticism of the fad. She told Cherwell, “I think NekNominate is kind of lame. Drinking over the recommended weekly allowance is kind of lame.”

Merton College JCR has voted to ban The Sun from its common room in protest against Page 3.

The motion, which passed at the JCR meeting last Sunday, was proposed by Merton’s Equal Opportunities Officer Hamish Forbes and seconded by OUSU’s Rent and Accommodation Officer Sophie Terrett.

27 members voted in favour of the motion, with 13 opposing it. There were only two recorded abstentions in what the JCR Vice-President Liz Milne described as a “high turnout”.

Forbes said the idea was to send a message to the Sun, as well as to show solidarity with the national ‘No More Page 3’ movement. He explained, “It’s important that we passed this motion in order to demonstrate to the Sun’s editors that we as a leading educational institution are opposed to Page Three in its current form”.

He went on to stress that the initiative gained strength from the number of members. “Every added organisation or institution to the list of those supporting the campaign is important”, he said.

The decision was not an easy one for all members of the JCR to take. PPE student Jonas Müller voiced opposition, warning that banning one newspaper would “lead to a slippery slope”. He added that “banning things for moral reasons is concerning,” and that if the nudity was the source of people’s worries the motion was pointless, as “12 year olds can watch porn online anyway”.

LGBTQ Rep Alex Beecham made the argument that the motion should be a protest about the objectification of women and not about nudity. Other speakers at the meeting concurred. Forbes agreed too and an amendment was made in order to clarify this point.

Information and Returning Officer Joe Hackett was worried about increasing the effect of the ‘Oxford Bubble’, noting that Merton JCR does not subscribe to the Daily Mail, and thus by banning The Sun would have no access to Britain’s first and second most popular newspaper. Finalist Chris McCabe worried that the lack of the Sun would lead to a lack of working class representation in the JCR’s media subscriptions.

The ‘No More Page 3’ campaign has gathered pace in recent weeks, gaining the backing of several well-known institutions and individuals. Edinburgh, Durham, UCL, Manchester and Oxford Brookes are just some of the 27 universities to have stopped stocking the paper. On top of this the campaign has received backing from politicians, unions, charities and celebrities. 151 MPs signed a letter asking for the Sun to end the feature, and Russell Brand published a photo of him wearing a No More Page 3 T-shirt.

“I’m surprised it took so long to happen,” said one first-year of the motion. “And even more surprised that some people voted against it. “Although I can understand maybe why they thought it was a bit unclear”.

One JCR member maintained, “A lot of people seemed unsure about how effective the whole thing was. I mean I get the idea that we’ll achieve more as part of a wider movement, but how much pressure will The Sun really be feeling as a result?”

Another Mertonian was concerned about how lightly some of the undergraduates were taking the new rulings. They explained that some older students, having discovered that it is impossible to appeal a motion within two years of its passing, were “talking about simply buying the Daily Sport instead”. This would “totally defeat the purpose of the motion”, they claimed.
Merton joins a host of other colleges in banning the paper. Brasenose, St Hugh’s, New, University and Teddy Hall have all outlawed the tabloid in recent times. New College student Verity Bell commended Merton’s decision commenting, “I’m glad that Oxford undergraduates are tackling the everyday objectification of women in the tabloid press directly.”

One Brasenose student said, “Taking these sorts of decisions has a positive direct effect; but the largest impact comes from the publicity generated in doing so. When Merton become another addition to the colleges that have taken a stand against The Sun, the message will gain further traction and hopefully be considered at a higher level.”

The No More Page 3 campaign acknowledged Merton’s efforts by retweeting Hamish Forbes declaration of success.

A bed bug infestation led to freshers being evacuated from Magdalen accommodation last week.

The infestation spread through the ground floor of the Waynflete Building, part of the first years’ accommodation over Magdalen Bridge. Alongside the continued flooding of the toilets on the corridor, this has resulted in the exodus of all nine residents on the floor.

One of the students affected by the infestation told Cherwell, “The issue started when I came back after the Christmas holidays. I first noticed something was wrong when I developed a rash on my arm, as I’m mildly allergic to insect bites. Later I found an insect in my room and went to speak to the Waynflete Dean. Despite them cleaning my room again, a week (and several more bites) later I found another insect.”

“Fortunately there have been no issues in my new room, but the whole experience was very unpleasant and not what I was expecting to have to deal with on returning to college after the holidays. 

“I have to say, if it was true that they knew there was a bug problem over the holidays then I’m very disappointed with the college for not sorting it out. It may only be student accommodation, but we are still paying ‘customers’ and I’d expect better than that.

“Although, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised; the whole of the ground floor of the Waynflete have been moved out because the toilets kept flooding the bathroom and the corridor, which was also very unpleasant, and has been happening continuously for over a year, (four times this term alone!). The college are now fixing this issue, and are replacing all the carpets and beds on ground floor. However, it has been a lot of hassle that I would rather not have had to deal with.”

Indeed, one student on the affected corridor told Cherwell, “I wasn’t actually personally affected by the bed bugs on my corridor- despite the fact that I still had to move into temporary accommodation, although this was more as a result of the flooding toilets.”

The accommodation is now being overhauled, with the floors being taken up and all the affected rooms being stripped. It is believed that the rooms will be uninhabitable for the rest of the academic year.

One graduate student at Magdalen expressed their concern. They said, “The fact that this infestation had gone unrecognised for as long as it took for it to spread to multiple rooms is more than worrying for the rest of Magdalen accommodation.”

One St. Anne’s third year expressed his surprise at the way that the situation had been dealt with.He said, “Lord al-mite-y! It really bugs me that colleges think they can get away with these ant-ics. They’d bed-er get their act together to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

“I suppose if it came to choosing between living with bed bugs and sleeping rough, it’d be the lesser of two weevils. I used to have an insect in my room, but I got rid of it. Shame really, it was my pest de resistance. Magdalen should certainly follow suit. For a wealthy college, this is really taking the pest.”

When contacted by Cherwell on Thursday, a spokesperson for Magdalen was unavailable for comment.

Oxford Reclaim the Night announced on Thursday the launch of their latest campaign against sexual violence, which will be centred on a march through Oxford on Friday 7 March to allow women to ‘Reclaim the Night’ for themselves.

The march will enable women to walk together through spaces in the city that they might normally avoid due to fear of violence, sexual harassment or rape. Oxford Reclaim the Night said in a statement, “The march aims to raise awareness of the scale of violence against women in our society, the need to prevent it, and the need to ensure women and girls can live free from the fear or violence.”

This year, the campaign is themed around freedom. Oxford Reclaim the Night said of the theme, “We believe that women should have the freedom to express themselves and be safe in public space. Freedom to walk alone is still denied to many women, in a society in which 85,000 women are raped every year and over 400,000 women experience sexual assault.”

Taking place on the evening before International Women’s Day, the march will begin at the East Oxford Community Centre and end at the Town Hall, to join the Oxford International Women’s Festival. While there will be a mixed rally at the East Oxford Community Centre to start the event, the march itself will be restricted to self-identifying women only.

Kirsty Braithwaite, from the campaign, told Cherwell of the march, “Events like Reclaim the Night are important because sexual violence is very common, and because we still have a long way to go before every survivor of sexual violence can speak up about what they’ve experienced, confident that they’ll be believed and not blamed. All proceeds from Reclaim the Night go to Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre (OSARCC), which we’re very happy to do.”

Braithwaite also defended restricting the march to self-itentifying women only. She told Cherwell, “This particular campaign is about gender-based violence, and we want to make sure that women feel safe on the march. It’s also about showing solidarity with other women.”

Lucy Delaney, OUSU Women’s Campaign Officer, commented, “I think Reclaim the Night is vital in recognising the ridiculous fact that women still feel unsafe to simply walk down the road at night.”

She added, “I think men are an important part in the bid to stop violence against women, but in supporting, rather than leading roles. I think the idea behind Reclaim the Night is that it seizes the autonomy and agency long denied to women, so obviously it is important that this is led and carried out by women.”

Abigail Burman, from the It Happens Here campaign against sexual violence, told Cherwell, “The marches are still important because the epidemic of sexual violence and violence against women is ongoing. And we as a society are still far too silent on these issues.”

However, one second year student said, “Although I think that preventing sexual violence is a very important goal, I’m not convinced that a march is the best way to act upon this.

“Instead, we should focus on directly helping women who have been affected by sexual harrassment or rape; simply raising awarenesss of the issues is not enough.”

Reclaim the Night marches began in the UK nearly forty years ago, on 12 November 1977, when torch-lit marches were held across England.

Exeter JCR has passed a motion to boycott hall in protest against the disproportionately high living costs faced by their students compared to other colleges across the university.

The boycott will begin on 17th February and is aimed at forcing the college’s senior management to open a dialogue with students about the cost of living.
The motion was carried by a margin of thirty votes with five students choosing to vote against, although the list of proposers and seconders featured over a hundred names.

JCR President Richard Collett-White explained the reason behind the boycott. He said, “Exeter ranks bottom in Oxford for living costs satisfaction. We pay an £840 Catering Charge annually and yet more for each meal, making us the most expensive undergraduate college. It costs around £13 a day to eat in college taking the catering charge into account. This undermines our access efforts and affordability. Years of ‘negotiations’ have yielded precious little, leading to widespread demand for a boycott.”

However, the college’s Rector, Frances Cairncross, CBE, FRSE, told Cherwell, “We are having conversations with the JCR and MCR about their views on the catering charge, and taking the opportunity to explain to them the true nature of college finances, about which there seems to be some uncertainty in the student body.”

One student commented, “Everyone in the JCR is pissed off, so it is just a matter of whether people think that boycotting will work. I don’t really think we have any other option.”

Another Exeter student, who wished to remain anonymous, told Cherwell, “Our college has been running a healthy surplus for several years – this year it nearly reached a million pounds of unrestricted surplus! Exeter is not a poor college, we’re just shockingly expensive. There’s a feeling that something has got to give – that if nothing is done about it, the JCR will be plagued by this problem for years to come.”

The motion included a mandate for Collett-White to arrange a meeting with the college Rector, Bursar and catering managers where students could air their concerns about the cost of living in college. In an open email addressed to the Rector, along with catering staff, he said, “The hall charge imposed on members of the JCR is widely felt to be unjustly high, relative to other Oxford colleges, and any effort to reduce the cost of living for students is to be encouraged. The proposed open meeting is an opportunity for College to persuade students not to go ahead with a hall boycott. Students at the JCR meeting hoped this would involve an explanation of why the Fellows have set charges at Exeter far higher than other colleges, as well as providing greater transparency and some concrete proposals to reduce student dissatisfaction.”
The boycott follows on from past disputes between the college and the JCR over finance issues. In an email to the JCR, the president said, “College failed to provide any evidence of their financial difficulty or need and failed to produce the schedules (as they agreed to do in 2009). The information College provided OUSU about their living costs was incorrect and did not include the full catering charge.”

The JCR passed a similar motion last Trinity to hold a one day hall boycott. As a result, the college said they would explore alternatives and implement them by this Hilary term, but they have not yet fulfilled this promise. One anonymous Exeter student was optimistic about JCR support, saying, “Last year’s boycott had a 100% turnout! Because this is a longer boycott our focus is on ‘substantially reducing hall turnout’ rather than emptying hall entirely. It’s an optional boycott for students.”

The Campaign Communications Officer emphasised the need for community involvement, stating, “In order to make the boycott last we need to provide Hallternatives for Exeter students. Some colleges and local businesses have already agreed to help out but we would really appreciate any more practical support, so if you are a JCR president and know that your hall would be able to take a few Exeter students we’d love to hear from you.”

The JCR has spent £120 on utensils for cooking in the college’s sole kitchen and have arranged extra support from Balliol JCR.

Oxford Economics, an Oxford-based consultancy, has challenged the coalition government’s commitment to implementing spending cuts. The consultancy firm reported that the government budget deficit will fall naturally at a much faster rate than initially predicted, reducing the need for the austerity package.

The report focused on the output gap: the difference between Britain’s actual GDP and potential GDP. While the output gap was believed to be 1.8 per cent of GDP, Oxford Economics has estimated that it is in fact over twice as large, at 5 per cent. A larger output gap means more potential for economic growth.
The report comes just weeks after the chancellor George Osborne warned that another £25bn of spending cuts needed to be made after 2015. If true, the report would invalidate Mr Osborne’s arguments for the need to make further spending reductions.

Students remain divided on the issue of spending cuts. Jack Matthews commented in his capacity as OUCA President that, “Dealing with the deficit and debt is the only way to return Britain to a strong economy. For the benefit of hardworking people everywhere, it is crucial that the government stick to their long-term economic plan.”

OULC Co-Chair Dan Turner responded, “Since the general election it has been clear that the government has been motivated by an antiquated and destructive ideology. By pushing for premature and severe cuts to capital spending, they caused an avoidable double-dip recession.”

Andrew Goodwin, senior economist at Oxford Economics and co-author of the IFS report, said, “The medicine of austerity could end up being applied in a dose higher than the patient actually needs.”

It is also possible that the output gap doesn’t imply anything about the level of spending cuts needed. Dr Ian Jewitt, an Economics fellow at Nuffield College, stated, “Whether they are right or wrong about the output gap, I’d have thought that issue was second order of importance for the necessity of cuts […] what happens to the world economy will be more important than the output gap.”

Dr Jewitt pointed out that other factors such as the Eurozone turmoil are crucial in determining British economic growth, and as such we cannot expect higher growth simply because there is an output gap.

One PPE finalist told Cherwell, “Everyone knows no one knows anything about macroeconomics. We just have to pretend that we do.”

Will Hutton, the principal of Hertford College, was spoofed on the BBC’s popular programme Charlie Brooker’s Weekly Wipe.

In the episode televised on 6th February, Philomena Cunk, the fake presenter of the ‘Moments of Wonder’ segment, held a mock interview with Mr Hutton. Questions included, “If you have a coin, where’s the money in that coin and if I cut it open could I take the money out of it?” Mr Hutton was “aware it was going to be a spoof”.

At first glance, Mr Hutton is not the type of figure one might expect to either be a fan of the show or have such a keen sense of humour. In a prestigious career he has been editor-in-chief of The Observer, economics correspondent for Newsnight and director of the Guardian national newspapers. He is also a governor of the London School of Economics and Political Science, a visiting professor at the University of Manchester’s Business School and at the University of Bristol.

Mr Hutton commented that his “job was to keep a straight face – and yes I enjoyed it, even though I knew the whole segment could only work to the extent sane answers would be made to sound absurd because of her character’s glorious capacity to get the wrong end of the stick and, better still, her mad follow-up questions. She is a brilliantly funny and original comic, and some of her questions that you didn’t see took ignorant gawkiness to an art form. Great comedy. I laughed a lot.”

Many members of Hertford College do not seem to be particularly enamoured with their principal’s appearance. One told Cherwell that it was, “somewhat amusing but he still hasn’t warmed the cockles of my heart. He’s no Prince Will.”

Another Hertford student called the principal as a “joker”, with a third stating, “I didn’t really realise before how good a sense of humour he has but this has definitely changed my opinion of him! I hope he’s on Charlie Brooker’s show more often, maybe as a regular feature?”

A first year Classics student at Jesus expressed her delight at the willingness of college principals to poke fun at themselves. She commented, “I really like how such important people still have a sense of humour! I found that whole interview segment hilarious and I’m pleased to see that Hertford’s principal is following Jesus’s Lord Krebs, in having a laugh with the rest of us. I hope other principals take note!”

Brooker’s show is notorious for his sarcastic, sardonic rundown of the week’s news. In this episode his targets included the Russian Winter Olympics, Scarlett Johansson, Barry from Eastenders, and the Superbowl.