Dr Toby Ord, a post-doctoral research fellow in Ethics, has pledged to give away £1m to charity before he retires.

He is hoping that by living on a student budget for the rest of his life, the sum he donates from his future earnings will save thousands of years of life for those in the developing world.

Ord currently earns £33,000 a year, but has capped his spending at £20,000. He expects to earn £1.5 million by his retirement at 65, based on the average earnings of an Oxford don. Through his donations, which will be targetting poverty and disease in the developing world, Ord calculates he can save 500,000 years of healthy life for some of the world’s poorest people.

Ord launched a new society called Giving What We Can at Balliol on Saturday. Members of the society are to publicly vow to give at least 10% of their future earnings to charity. Ord has already persuaded Peter Singer and Thomas Pogge, the famous moral philosophers, to make the pledge.

Ord set up the society with the hope he could turn an idea into a movement. “I was contacted by a few people who I didn’t know on the internet who thought it was a great idea and said they would like to do it too, asking ‘how do I join up?’ But there was nothing to join.”

Ord is excited about the publicity the launch has stirred up, “We’ve had 45 new people ask to sign up over the last couple of days so its growing quite a lot.” Despite being established less than a week ago, the society is already looking at figures like £40 million going to save lives. A lot of interest has been coming from Oxford, though since launching they’ve had people who want to sign up from Hong Kong, Germany, France, Mexico, the US, Australia and Canada.

Ord explained that the work behind his society was all about factors of 10. “NICE, who look at the NHS in the UK, will fund medicines of up to £30,000 per disability adjusted life year (DALY). And I think that’s a pretty good deal, getting a DALY for £30,000.” DALYs are a measurement used in public health; they take into account the fact that some medicines do not cure disease, but result in additional years of life suffering from poor health.

However, when Ord started researching it, he discovered he could save the same number of DALYs for far less money. “In other countries there are interventions which are 10 times as effective, that’s £3000, 10 times more effective than that is £300 and then £30, then £3…. So the idea would be to spend the same £30,000 but instead of saving one of these things you save about 10,000 of them.” Ord has now worked out that donating in the right way he can get down to £2 per DALY.

Ord’s society will use research from the World Health Organisation on aid effectiveness. Although he does not promise to find the best charity, he hopes to find ones which are particularly effective.Ord will be sending his money to the SCI charity (Schistosomiasis Control Intiative – tropical diseases ), Stop TB, and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition.

“The idea is also to focus on giving really efficiently and effectively, thinking about these ideas of factors of 10 and how much more improvement you could make by going for the most effective interventions. So it had these two focuses: one is giving a lot more than most people think about and the other is giving more effectively. The benefit you get is actually the product of these two if you multiply them together, the amount of money times the efficiency, so by increasing both those dimensions you can improve the amount someone achieves by a factor of more than 1000.”

“At the moment we have a particular focus on health because it seems like it’s a really effective area and it’s an analysable area; with other areas there is a worry that not much is being achieved or perhaps the bad sides, aid dependents and so on, could be overwhelming the good sides.”

Yet the organisation will keep looking beyond health for ways to maximise the good they can do. “If we lobbied to try to remove the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU that would have, as far as I can tell, tremendously beneficial effects, but the question there would be how much you get for your dollar. If I were going to donate all of my future income to some group lobbying for that and they succeeded because of my money, I’m sure that would actually do even more good, but what’s the chance that they only succeed because of that sum of money?”

One example of how the money will be spent is on soil transmitted helminths, parastic worms which cause serious problems for people when they get in the body. Ord explained, “There are about 1.2 or 1.4 billion people who are infected with these things so it’s not very localised, but it’s very easy to treat and there are many regions where almost everyone has this which means that its much cheaper to treat such cases.”

The academic said his study of Ethics at Oxford his what made him start taking the numbers seriously. He argues, “If someone were hit by a car outside we’d all want to rush over and help as much as we could, even it it took up all of our day afterwards and so forth, but when you talk about saving 1,000 lives making various sacrifices over your life we tend not to really imagine that as 1,000 times more important. Part of this idea is really having an appropriate sense of scale of things.”

Ord does not see budgeting as a student for the rest of his life as a great sacrifice, though he admits that he might have to change his plans if he had a child. “Often we remark that the best years of our life are our student years and you get a lot of things which are really meaningful to you… wonderful exciting conversation, time with your girlfriend or boyfriend or wife in my case, and also reading beautiful books or listening to great music, occasionally going out to listen to some fantastic local band. There’s just so many things you can do that don’t take that much money, so you gravitate towards them as a student because you don’t really have that much money.”

“I’m just happy to keep doing these types of things so I think its going to affect me very little. All it will mean is I won’t get extras in my life like a big house up in North Oxford, but I’ll probably get some nice small modern apartment and live my life and be very happy with it.”

Senior academics have been calling for a rise in tuition fees to counter-act the academic “brain drain” in the wake of the government’s announcement of a Higher Education funding review.

The senior academics from a wide range of British universities claim that higher wages in countries such as the USA are causing many top academics to move abroad, leading to a lower standard of education in the UK. A study last year from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that Britain was suffering the worst “brain drain” of any developed country. The academics believe the only way of stemming the flow of the best and the brightest is to up fees in order to improve standards.

Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics at Warwick University, argued the tuition fee cap should be removed altogether, allowing universities to charge their own fees. He said ministers would have to be much stronger to stop a “systematic move” of top scholars from the UK.

Dr Anna Vignoles, senior lecturer at the Institute for Education, part of the University of London, agreed, “The United States operates on a completely different system. Tuition fees are higher and academic pay is higher. We need to increase tuition fees.”

The academics’ arguments will frustrate those campaigning against a hike in fees, including Oxford’s Student Union and other student activists who swung into action after the announcement last week.

Stefan Baskerville, OUSU president, who advocates a graduate tax pointed out, “Increased funding is not the same as increased fees: there are other ways to get more money into higher education that don’t involve burdening students with debt. No evidence has been presented that increased funding has to take the form of higher fees.”

He added, “Funding is one of a range of factors that influence where academics choose to work.”

Richard Holland, St Anne’s JCR rep for academic affairs, also opposed the academics. “I would prefer to see the extra money required to keep top academics in Britain raised through Government support and a greater emphasis on the University seeking the financial support of Alumni and other private donors rather than current students. Raising tuition fees by large amounts or leaving them uncapped will only deter those highly intelligent candidates who simply can’t afford to come to University – as in the situation amongst many American Institutions.”

Many students are concerned of the effect a fee rise would have on access. Oliver Richards, St Anne’s 2nd year said, “I can’t understand how universities can justify considering this as a policy. they repeatedly espouse the opinion that they need more state school and lower income students, yet they propose raising tuition fees to a level that would leave many students with debts of over £30,000 on graduation and those studying medicine with around £70,000.”

Last week, delegates from OUSU, including president Stefan Baskerville, lobbied Westminster as part of their campaign to raise awareness of the government’s review of the Higher Education funding. This campaign is a part of the wider NUS “funding for our future” campaign.

Commenting on the campaign Baskerville said, “Last week was great. There was loads of energy at Westminster as students lobbied their MPs. After meetings with students from Oxford, both of Oxford’s local MPs committed to voting against increased fees in the next parliament. At the same time, more than thirty students spent several hours in Oxford talking to students about the issue and handing out flyers, and the response to them was very positive.”

However, he appreciates that this is merely the beginning, and that there is a long way to go. “We need to increase the profile of alternatives to fees such as a graduate tax, which would see graduates paying back into higher education according to what they earn. Clearly higher education needs to be funded adequately to maintain standards, and the question is how to achieve that. We think fees are not the way forward – there are fairer and more sustainable alternatives available.”

A group of students and citizens spent last Saturday night sleeping outside the St Clement’s churchyard to raise awareness about homelessness in Oxford.

Andrew Smith of Gatehouse, one of the homelessness charities organising the event, said, “One of the great things about the sleep-out is that it is several of the different agencies working with homeless people that come together”. He pointed out that they already had “about 100 people and its only half past eleven”.

The event has been running for over a decade, and they have raised an estimated £200,000 altogether for the homeless in Oxford.

Smith commented, “Oxford has the worst homeless problem outside London for a city of its size.” He pointed out that while the practical things students could do such as buying the big issue were important, the everyday attitude we have towards the homeless makes a difference. “In a day-to-day way, the thing is really not to pass on by and ignore people…the main thing is to acknowledge that they are there, and talk to them, listen to them, and find out what their situation is.”

Oxford students were present among the sleepers, with contingents from University College, Keble, St. Anne’s and St. John’s huddling together in the chilly churchyard.

Marc Kusicka, a John’s student helping to organise the event, said that the evening was “a great opportunity to raise awareness of the issue of homelessness in oxford…hopefully it will raise a lot of money which is really needed for the shelters to provide more food, because food things aren’t funded by the council.”

Claire Wright, a University College student argued, “The problem is much more complex than people will admit…often homeless people have the ability to generate a reasonable amount of money for themselves, but they need people to come alongside them and help them make really good decisions about how they are going to use that money.”

She added, “It’s not just about giving loads of people money, but creating the right structures for support.”

Kusicka and Wright volunteer through OHCV, the section of OxHub which facilitates the establishment of local volunteering projects. Kusicka estimates that there are currently between 20/30 students involved with the project, who volunteer at soup kitchens, and help out at The Gap with classes and activities.

Steve Johnson, who has been sleeping rough since 1996, emphasised the importance of these projects. “The Gatehouse and the soup buns are the most important things going for homeless people because they can get fed there, they can get a pair of clean clothes there, they can get a shower there, and these are the most important things to a homeless person.”

He added, “We go there, and we’ve got a lot of respect for the volunteers – it’s a family.”

Members of the RAF were also in attendance, with 11 representatives from Brize Norton among the sleepers. SAC Diana Walls, Air Movement Squadron explained, “We started reading up on it, and realised that 6% of rough sleepers in the Oxfordshire area are ex-military…so we thought we would jump on it, get amongst them, show our support.

“It’s quite sad to see fellow members of the air force, so we would like to be here to show our support for them.”

Wallis was not worried about the cold, pointing out that “we’ve been in rougher conditions than this.”

Several Oxford Brookes students at the event set up a “base camp” in the churchyard. One student commented, “They say it’s a tale of two cities – as students we run around having fun, going to the library, and then there’s this total other world, and if you don’t look, you don’t see it.”

Keziah, a gap year student added, “It’s an eye-opener, because I’ve been cold before, but I’ve always had the opportunity to go home and get warm…it puts it in perspective, in a very toe-numbing kind of way.”

An Oxford academic has been chosen to lead a controversial religious advisory panel to the government.

Francis Davis, of Blackfriars Hall, will lead the panel of religious experts in acting as key policy advisers. Davis is a prominent force in the Catholic Church in Great Britain.
The panel is being launched this week alongside a number of other interfaith initiatives designed to increase social cohesion. Communities Secretary, John Denham, who announced the plans, claimed that Christians and Muslims in particular could contribute meaningful insights into many areas of policy making, such as the economy, parenting and climate change, and could help to advise the government on “how to inform the rest of society about these issues.”

The decision to give faith a role in shaping government policy has sparked criticism from many groups, both from secular and religious communities. Many in Oxford were surprised by the decision to include a University academic who is also outspoken in his religious views.

Janette Mill, of the Oxford Atheist Society (OxAth), said that she did not feel that a panel composed entirely of religious representatives such as Davis would sufficiently consider the secular perspective: “Part of the duty of a politician is to lay aside their personal views to represent the people they have been elected by. In previous years, the ‘wisdom’ that some religious leaders have brought on issues such as homosexuality and parenting has, at least in some cases, been divisive and intolerant. 

“I am still not sure why the views of religious leaders are deemed somehow more valid or ‘wise’ than the views of elected individuals, whatever their faith or lack of it.  I do not feel that a panel entirely composed of religious leaders is going to reflect non-religious views, especially on the issues above. It is important to ascertain the views of religious groups on policy, but obtaining only religious viewpoints is not inclusive and cannot be called representative of the general population as long as secular and atheist voices are ignored.”

The co-Chair of Oxford University Labour Club, Ben Lyons, commented, “Millions of British people follow religions and faith can inspire individuals to positive action. But I do not think that this means that Mr Davis is better placed to advise on economic policy than a trained economist or on tackling climate change than an environmental activist. We should be consulting religious leaders on issues of religion, but I think when they are influencing broader political debate it gives them an undue influence.”

Emily Baxter, President-Elect of the Oxford Liberal Democrat Society, agreed, adding, “Many people in modern Britain are agnostic or atheist. It is therefore hard to see how the members of this panel will be able to represent the views of their own religion, let alone the population as a whole. It is wrong to give so much influence to panel that is unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative.

“It is not the place of the state to promote religion or indeed any way of life. The government’s decisions should not be based on any particular group’s beliefs about right and wrong; that is a matter of individual conscience. Faith is a personal matter, let’s keep it that way.”

Denham explained the move saying, “Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril.” He added that the government had been wrong not to listen to the advice of religious groups in the past, and criticised those calling for religion to be kept separate from national politics and public life, stating “I don’t like the strand of secularism that says that faith is inherently a bad thing to have and should be kept out of public life.”

He added, “We should continually seek ways of encouraging and enhancing the contribution faith communities make on the central issues of our time. Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity – the very values which are essential to politics, to our economy and our society.”

Cherish Shirley, of the Oxford Christian Union agreed, and congratulated Mr Davis on his appointment. She said, “It is nice to see a leader from a University synonymous with Atheism in such a major public role.

“Religious citizens live under God’s law but also under the law of the country; it only makes sense for the two to intertwine. I believe that religious leaders can help shed light on the reasons why our country has the values it does. I do not know how this notion that politics and religion should be kept separate and that religious wisdom is not valuable came about, but it seems a ridiculous notion to have in a Christian country.”

A graduate student from Linacre College has been selected to take part in a climate change expedition to Antarctica.

Aaron Holdway, originally from Nova Scotia in Canada, will be joining climate change experts, students and corporate leaders from 15 different countries in order to experience the effects of climate change and spread the word about safeguarding the environment

The International Antarctic Treaty Expedition, set up by explorer Robert Swan, has set out this year for the ninth time. The participants sailed from Ushuaia, Argentina, on Wednesday, and their expedition will span 2 weeks, in which they will be visiting parts of the coast and various islands, in temperatures as low as -15°C.

Mr Holdway said of his journey, “It’s a bit clichéd to refer to the experience of a lifetime, but if anything is, it’s this. I mean, seriously: Antarctica?! It feels like I’m going to the moon.”

Two Oxford academics have published a paper arguing that rich countries must pay for the introduction of low carbon technology in poorer nations if significant emissions reduction is to be achieved.

The paper controversially focuses on “clean-coal” technology, despite the fact that coal is an industry that many argue should be phased out in the drive for emissions reduction. Drs Arunabha Ghosh and Kevin Watkins argue that in the medium term, for which interim climate change targets will be set, this is simply not feasible, and so reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants should be a primary aim.

Neil Bowerman, Oxford DPhil student and Executive Director of Climatico, (a group specialising in analysis of climate change policy) fully agrees with the recommendations of the paper, but warns that a focus on “clean coal”, which at full capacity would capture “at maximum 85% of emissions” is “at best a temporary solution and at worst a false distraction” from the more pressing task of reducing overall emissions. Aside from tar sands, coal power is “still the most polluting form of energy we have” and will never be clean enough to serve as a long-term solution.

The paper, “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change – Why Financing to Technology Transfer Matters”, explains that worldwide emissions must halve by 2050 to avoid a global temperature increase of 2°C. By contrast, current estimations show emissions increasing by 45% during this period, with 90% of this growth coming from developing countries. In India alone, it is expected that a 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant will be constructed each week, on average, until 2030.

Ghosh and Watkins assert that the key to reducing these projections is technological change, yet this is expensive. Unsurprisingly, only rich countries have the money and resources to put low emissions technology into action: the best performing coal power stations in developed nations are 50% more efficient than the average plants in India and China. Developing nations are loath to pay for costly clean technology which would come at the expense of poverty reduction. The investments that are needed are staggering: achieving 45% thermal efficiency by 2030 would cost India $5.2-8.4 billion more than planned per year.

Emphasising that climate change is a global problem, that developed countries have had the greatest emissions over time, and that developed countries have the greatest capability to pay, Ghosh and Watkins argue, “Rich countries should finance the full incremental cost of the transition to higher efficiency.” They further explain, “This can be done through the creation of a Low Carbon Technology and Finance Facility to mobilise around $50 billion a year by 2020 through the public purse, with additional amounts leveraged through private investment.” The academics believe that this is the key to a meaningful agreement in the Copenhagen climate conference this December.

Mae Penner, Chair of OUSU’s Environment & Ethics Campaign, agreed with the paper’s recommendations, stressing the international nature of the climate change problem. “We in Britain cannot separate our future from that of developing nations whose emissions are set to skyrocket in the next few decades: their ability to become low-carbon will define the future of our shared planet, so it is essential that we offer them as much support as we can.”

This view is shared by Alice Heath, University College JCR President, who emphasised that “The blunt truth of climate change is that poorer countries who have emitted virtually no CO2 will suffer the most.”

Students at several Oxford colleges have been left fuming at the state of fire alarms.

Malfunctioning fire alarms in Oriel, Balliol and Worcester have been going off at all times of day and night and students are angry that college authorities seem slow to act. The situation has led to students ignoring the alarms because they are set off so often.

It is thought that the fire alarm in Worcester’s Mitchell building is being set off by spiders living in the loft. Students claim they have to regularly go up to wipe the cobwebs away. The alarm is not always loud enough to wake students up, posing a serious threat to safety. Additionally, the porters of the building have no way of knowing when the alarm has sounded. Students have to visit the lodge in person to report the alarm, raising questions about whether the fire service would be called in time in the event of a real emergency.

Tom Hosking, who lives in the Mitchell Building commented, “It’s getting ridiculous. We have to go and fetch a porter each time it goes off, which has been quite a few nights in the past week. One guy didn’t even wake up last time and he was more sober than a judge at the time. It’s actually pretty dangerous because if there was a real fire I don’t think anyone would treat it seriously anymore. And, it’s very irritating.”

There are reports that at Balliol alarms in one staircase went off 5 times in one night, and have been going off throughout the term. They are only now being repaired.

In Oriel, students complain that alarms in several staircases are so sensitive that they are being set off by steam from the showers. They have gone off more than 20 times this term, sometimes ringing for up to half an hour.

An Oriel student living in the affected area said, “It’s a nightmare – especially in some staircases, where the alarms don’t switch off with the rest, so we get stuck with it ringing for ages. A lot of finalists live in the staircases worst affected, it’s really disruptive to our work. It isn’t just annoying, it’s dangerous – I know several people who just ignore the alarm now. We could face a total disaster if we had a real fire. We’ve heard little to nothing from college about it, so we don’t really know what, if anything, is being done about it.”

It is a legal requirement for college accommodation to have well-maintained fire detection systems.

Christ Church’s naked charity calendar had to be hastily re-shot this week after the college censors deemed some photographs inappropriate.

The verdict on the calendar was delivered a few days before it was due to go to print, meaning three photos had to be retaken.

The calendar had been sent to the censors for approval a week before it was due to go to print and at an arranged meeting it was decided that certain photographs were inappropriate.

Organisers were told squashed bottoms were too erotic and the cover photo featuring a couple in Tom Quad had to be retaken with the pair standing up. The censors also told organisers that nudity should be a secondary feature in the photographs.

One student involved in the project pointed out that not everybody in the original photographs was able to make the retakes, meaning the calendar now has “a lot fewer people.” The student also commented that it was a shame as “people gave up their personal time” to the project and perhaps as a result of “bad experiences wouldn’t want to buy it.”

The student maintained this year’s photos were not “more explicit” than last year’s and that the censors had been “interfering”, especially considering organisers had “put thought into making it tasteful.”

The censors are expected to protect the image of the college. One fourth year Christ Church student thought that they had gone too far this year commenting, “I am outraged by the college’s act of pure despotic censorship of what can only perceived to be a work of art.”

Christ Church JCR President Evelyn Ashton-Griffiths remarked, “It was a shame that a couple of the photos were not approved, but the decision was taken to re-shoot these. All of the photos have been well received by the students at Christ Church, including the new ones. The outcome has been, I think, really positive despite the problems we faced.”

The censors were invited to comment, but have yet to respond.

Ashton-Griffiths added, “The naked calendar is supposed to be fun, and the decision to retake the photos as opposed to cause further tension seemed to be the best option therefore.”

Another student involved in the project said the calendar is “still very good” and in fact “better than last year” despite these setbacks.

This year’s naked calendar for RAG follows Christ Church’s successful calendar last year. Ashton-Griffiths says she hopes the calendar will be “just as successful this year” and that all the photographs are “witty, artistic and creative”.

The calendar will go on sale in seventh week and proceeds will go towards charities GUA Africa and Breast Cancer Research.

Oxford University is planning a comprehensive renovation of the Iffley Road sports centre, it has been revealed this week.

The plans include an indoor cricket school, fencing room, three squash courts, a weights room, climbing wall and a café. In total, over 80 sports will enjoy upgraded facilities if the project goes ahead.

University sports director Jon Roycroft commented, “We are now moving onto the challenge of fully developing plans for the University to fund-raise and build the highest quality indoor sports facilities for the 21st century.” He added, “It will be an absolute transformation.”

The current estimated renovation budget is said to be around £19m, but an Oxford University spokesperson said the university is “holding a public consultation and our final designs will depend on any comments made by members of the university and local community that we can take on board, and the budget will obviously reflect this.”

The consultation highlights the University’s sensitivity to concerns by Oxford residents regarding the impact of the construction work on the local area. David Barton, chairman of Iffley Road Area Residents’ Association commented, “Although we would not be against the development, it is a conservation area and everything would need to fit in with that.”

Currently, local residents stand to benefit from the extensive works. Plans for the increased capacity and improvements to the Iffley Road sports grounds will allow a greater number of non-university members to enjoy the facilities. Currently, the Iffley Road gym has almost 500 external members and non-university teams also use the hockey pitches.

Amongst Oxford students, opinion is divided over the plans. Seamus Brightman, a student at Trinity College who makes regular use of the current facilities believes, “renovation is more than welcome, but the costs could easily spiral out of control.” Other students have stated that it is not the out-of-date facilities themselves that are causing inconvenience, but the distance one has to travel to benefit from them.

The University intends to apply for the planning permission in January. A spokesperson said, “We are planning to put in for planning permission in January but when work begins will depend on the planning and fund-raising processes.”

David Cameron, Conservative Party leader and an alumnus of Brasenose, addressed students of the college last Saturday.

His speech was entirely on politics. He explained how to achieve progressive results through conservative means and fielded questions on a diverse range of topics from the environment to social policy.

Surprisingly, no questions raised his membership of the Bullingdon Club. He asserted at the start of his speech, “I would not change a thing about my time here.”

Afterwards he met with smaller groups of students at Brasenose who talked with him about life at Oxford. One student, Johnny Isaac, commented that Cameron “gave a polished performance which could potentially have swayed any swing voters in the room”.

Earlier in the week the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg visited Oxford and addressed an audience of 350 people as part of his “Nick Clegg meets…” series.