…I'd move Oxford up north. For a centre of worldwide academic eminence, Oxford’s founders were surprisingly stupid when deciding where to put it. If I were establishing a community of scholars and the only two spaces left on Earth were in Hell and the Thames Valley, I’d have to toss a coin. The unfortunate proximity of South-East England to the Continent ensures winters are ludicrously cold, while building a city between two rivers doesn’t seem like such a bright idea now that global warming means constant rain on North Parade (which is, typically of Oxford, actually south of South Parade). Starry-eyed Southerners will champion Oxford’s proximity to London nightlife as a selling point, but all I’m saying is that I’d never heard the phrase ‘I’ve been mugged again’ until I met a Londoner. Although possibly they’re just referring to paying £20 to get into a club.No – as we approach Oxford’s second millennium of academic excellence, it’s clear that drastic reform is needed. We simply must move Oxford up North.This might seem like the kind of radical governance that’d have Congregation forcing me out of the job by half-past nine in the morning (‘You’re going to do what to me? Write a strongly-worded letter to the Telegraph? Oh, please, Professor, anything but that!’), but a move up North would alleviate many of the university’s problems. Few colleges have the space to accommodate students on site for the duration of their course. Some build annexes, but space is at such a premium in central Oxford that many are closer to Coventry than Carfax. If Oxford were up North, living out would become affordable. Rooms in student houses cost about £60 per week in my home city of Liverpool, while at Edinburgh University, for £75 a week, I could live in the grand district of Morningside. Colleges would find acquiring land for annexes no problem, as derelict mills in Lancashire go for about a tenner, and are a damn sight more beautiful than the kind of sixties monstrosity erected by most Oxford colleges.The quality of food in Hall often evokes consternation, the catch being that colleges are either accomplished but too expensive (such as my own, with delicious formals that, at £8, cost about as much as a deposit on a house in Newcastle) or cheap but uninspiring (such as a certain rather academic college, where the fact that this is the JCR food rep’s third successive year in office can only mean that the students are too busy revising to eat in Hall ever.) Yet kitchen facilities in many colleges are poor or non-existent, and eating out in Oxford is prohibitively expensive for those on tight budgets. Up North, however, eating out is gloriously cheap.
According to a national newspaper’s study of various UK locations, Oxford has the unhealthiest air, more polluted even than in London, and breathing it is apparently the equivalent of smoking 60 fags a day – but minus the steadying effect on the nerves. In my first term at university, I developed a chronic asthmatic wheeze which disappears whenever I return to Liverpool, and recurs every time I come back to Oxford. Similarly, as a fresher I acquired a nasty rash on my arms and legs until I was informed that it was probably the drinking water, the River Thames being the most polluted in the country. I stopped, and the rash disappeared. If for no other reason then, as Vice-Chancellor my main concern would be the health of students, something which would be far easier to maintain just a little further from its unfortunate location.by Heather Ryan

Smoking causes cancer. ‘Really?’ I hear you say, ‘Thanks ever so much for that original and enlightening gem of information; from now on I will refrain from such a potentially lethal habit.’ Or perhaps not. We have been saturated with messages like this ever since primary school, to the point that they lose their impact on their bored listeners, and so it is easy to forget that those living in a pre-Richard Doll existence were ignorant to such findings. ‘Who is this miraculous man?’ you wonder breathlessly (although admittedly that’s not in amazement but due to the fact that you’ve just smoked a box of Lambert and Butlers.)Richard Doll was heavily involved in research into the relationship between smoking and cancer, a connection he and his colleagues discovered through a study of lung cancer patients. The original hypothesis of these observations theorised that the individuals in question were perhaps affected by the then-new material of tarmac, or perhaps car fumes, until it was discovered that the only connection between them was their tobacco habit (although the suggestion that Richard noticed this trend when joined by the fifty-or-so participants for a quick ciggie on the fire escape is fabricated by, well, me actually).Doll’s place in history was thus established, and while some say that all roads lead to some dusty old place called Rome, it was perhaps inevitable that Richard would end up in Oxford. And so he did, taking up the post of Regius Professor of Medicine in 1969, beginning a new chapter in his very busy career as he almost single-handedly changed public perceptions of epidemiology and became the first warden of Green College.Doll was actually a bit of a multi-tasker. While his work at Oxford is significant in its own right, his findings elsewhere transformed public perceptions of what was once seen as a harmless habit (the children of the Russian royal family couldn’t get enough of the stuff), and brought home its true implications. The fact that we poor students don’t get a tenner every time we give blood (à la USA) is kind of his fault though, as he was key in avoiding such an idea through his work with the National Blood Service. Oh well. You win some, you lose some.by Gareth Peters

Rhian Harris investigates the GM revolution Like many students at Oxford, I make a basic effort as a consumer to choose products that are environmentally-friendly, and where risks to producers’ health have been minimised. I try to choose the ‘organic’ or ‘fair trade’ option where available at Sainsbury’s Local, buy an organic lunch from Green’s café and opt for fair-trade flowers. Until recently, if you’d asked me whether I would buy genetically modified foods, I’d have said no, citing possible environmental hazards, the risk to human health and ‘unnaturalness’ as my reasons. It was in the mid-1990s that the first GM foods became available in Britain and the controversy surrounding them really began. Under the influence of tabloid hysteria and the label ‘Frankenfoods’, many people opposed GM foods – despite knowing little of the actual facts – and supported the move by supermarkets to remove all related ingredients from their own brand products. “In response to overwhelming customer concern and demand for non-GM foods, Sainsbury’s was the first major supermarket to eliminate GM ingredients from all its own brand products”, says one of the nation’s biggest stores. Yet those who cover genetic modification as part of degree subjects such as biology will know the benefits of such a concept, and perhaps realise that it has the potential to improve the food security of many of the starving in the developing world, radically improve human health and save threatened ecosystems. Genetic modification is typically defined as the insertion, deletion or modification of a single gene in the genome of a target organism. A gene inserted can be from any other organism and can be achieved through use of the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This normally infects plants through wounds and transfers part of its own DNA into the host plant genome, causing the plant to produce substances necessary for the bacterium’s survival. In genetic engineering, this DNA can be removed and replaced with a desired gene, then inserted into the host plant genome. In alternative methods, particles of tungsten or gold can be coated with DNA containing the gene of interest and fired into the nucleus of the cell, where the DNA then recombines into the genome. Genetic modification is just a very precise method of crop improvement: just one gene is altered, the sequence and function of which is well known. In traditional crop breeding between related variants meanwhile, many genes are transferred, not just those for the desired character, leading to potential unexpected side effects.
GM technology has potential to enable farmers to produce higher crop yields on the same area of land, without resorting to using expensive and environmentally damaging chemicals. The world’s population is expected to grow 2.5 billion by 2050, with the majority of this increase in developing countries. To support this growth in countries such as China and India (1 kg meat requires around 3-10 kg grain), cereal crop yields will need to double in this time. However, virtually all land available for agriculture is already being used – the only other suitable land is currently tropical rainforest. Destruction of the wealth of biodiversity supported by such areas (more than one-third of all the world’s species are found in the Amazon rainforest) is damaging the environment much more than any potential negative environmental impacts it has been claimed GM crops may have. While GM foods are considered unnatural by many, most don’t consider that ‘natural’ crop plants grown today are dramatically different from those they were derived from in the wild due to traditional selective breeding. Additionally, the little-known use of X-ray irradiation to induce mutations in plants, a far more haphazard process than that of genetic modification, fragments and changes much of the genome. That’s certainly not natural, and yet the public trust in the sensationalism of the media, unaware of the alternatives.GM opponents such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are impeding a technology which could have major benefits for those in the Third World. Farmers in places such as Africa have seen their crops fail as a result of environmental stresses including drought, and if GM technology could engineer plants better able to resist these stresses it could go some way to reducing the global figure of 30,000 dying every day from starvation. Additionally, populations in developing countries often survive on just one or two staple crops, such as rice. These crops often lack enough macronutrients such as protein and many micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals, and this can lead to serious deficiency diseases, such as blindness resulting from a lack of Vitamin A affecting 250,000 children each year. GM technology offers the opportunity to improve the nutritional content of food, and with the correct technology, which can be used to create more beneficial versions of food (Golden Rice for example contains higher levels of beta-carotene) it is important that the knowledge and necessary materials are made available to those in developing countries.Another potential benefit of genetic modification for those in the developing world is in the production of oral vaccines. There, vaccinations by injection are not always carried out under sterile conditions, risking infection. There are also problems with keeping the vaccines cold during storage and transportation. With GM technology, plants have been engineered to produce antigens, which can be delivered orally and invoke the antibody response in human trials, with the potential to produce resistance against diseases such as hepatitis and dysentery.A survey of Britons in 2003 found that only 2% would be happy to eat GM foods, and this is understandable: for a start, the media has hardly let up in its scare-mongering about GM. Consumers have not really seen many clear benefits yet because the traits that have been introduced have mainly been for the benefit of the producer. They also currently have little faith in scientists or regulatory organisations following debacles such as the recent foot and mouth virus escape from a Surrey laboratory. In 1996, a clearly labelled tomato paste made from genetically-modified tomatoes was sold in supermarkets across Britain. This test showed that, in 1996, the public were willing to accept GM foods: the paste was cheaper than its non-GM counterpart, reportedly tasted better, and sold well. However, the attitude of the public to GM food changed and three years later the paste was removed from sale. Today, GM ingredients are sometimes used in food products, and these products have to pass far more stringent safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority than conventional new foods, despite the fact that, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, “in those countries where transgenic crops have been grown, there have been no verifiable reports of…health or environmental harm.”The only GM crops that have ever been grown in Britain were those in the government Field-Scale Evaluations; used to test the ecological impact and safety of GM crops, but which were often ruined by extremist environmental groups. However, GM crops (mostly maize, soyabean and cotton) which have been modified to be herbicide and insecticide resistant have been grown in other countries since 1996 and are currently grown on 250 million acres in 22 countries across the world, by around 9 million farmers – so Britain is very much unusual in its anti-GM attitude. GM expert and Oxford University Sibthorpian Professor of Plant Sciences Dr Chris Leaver opines that “GM crops are not a silver bullet which will feed the starving millions or reverse the impact of man-made climate change. However, if we are to satisfy the real and legitimate environmental concerns associated with modern high input agriculture and the threat of global warming, and still feed the increasing world population in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner, we must assume responsibility for fully evaluating the potential of GM. Doing nothing is not an option.” So next time you’re at the supermarket and tempted to pay that little bit extra for the organic crisps, or mulling over the ingredients of your lunch in hall, ignore the hype around these so-called Frankenfoods and tuck in.

Cherwell24Editor: Selena Wisnom
[email protected]Associate Editors: Leon Harrington and Charlotte King
[email protected] Deputy Editors: Daniel Millichip and Tom Carpenter
[email protected]

CherwellEditors: Laura Pitel and Tom Seymour
[email protected]Deputy Editors: Henry Clarke Price, Oskar Cox Jensen and David Matthews
[email protected]
 

Bild (sensationalist red-top) columnist Franz Josef Wagner always writes a letter to a person or  group as his regular newspaper piece. His latest one is one to cut out and keep, or at least to laugh at:

Dear Hillary Clinton,

You are like a bird that rises rejuvenated from the ashes. For the ancient Greeks, the phoenix was the symbol of second chance.

All the TV pundits, the pollsters, CNN, Spiegel Online, the BBC, BILD, me, even Bob Woodward, the legendary Watergate reporter for the Washington Post, were wrong in their analyses.

Hillary Clinton was a casserole fowl [eh?], shattered by everything. And suddenly Hillary Clinton cries in a coffee shop in New Hampshire.

The world media’s failure was not to view the tears as genuine. When a woman cries, no biological secret comes out of her eyes [‘scuse me?]. A woman who cries should be hugged and patted on the back.

Hillary Clinton achieved it with tears.

Warmest regards,

F. J. Wagner

I can’t be bothered to translate any more, so German speakers can check out Wagner’s previous letter, in which he describes Hillary’s marriage to Bill as

a flower pressed inside a poetry anthology.

Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external sites 

The REAL election '08

The boss is in trouble. State Prime Minister Roland Koch is being branded a racist for a pre-election statement… and his critic is a familiar name. According to a report:

Wading back into German politics after a long break, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder this week launched a blistering attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel and Roland Koch, the conservative premier of the western state of Hesse, charging them with inciting racial hatred and damaging Germany's image.

His crime? Saying to a Bild interviewer:

How much are we prepared to take from a small proportion of violent youths, who frequently have a foreign background? We have spent too long showing a strange sociological understanding for groups that consciously commit violence as ethnic minorities.

The widely-read Deutsche Welle (whose purpose, I understand, is to put Germany in a good light around the world) calls the whole thing straight out a

Xenophobic election campaign,

which assumes that Koch’s lying with the outright intention of inciting racial hatred. The head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews goes rather OTT:

The standard of Premier Roland Koch's election campaign hardly differs from that of the NPD [the Neo-Nazis].

Erm, except the violence and the racism and the ethnic cleansing. Let's not get too carried away.

Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external sites

For a while I’ve thought the dull German media could do with an injection of the Murdoch treatment. And it seems my wish has been granted. It emerged today that the media mogul has bought almost 15% in Premiere,  Germany’s biggest Pay TV network. It apparently cost him €287m, and reports say he’s satisfied with the stake at the moment and doesn’t plan to increase it.It’s not much at the moment. Premiere, a bit like Sky, is big on the sport (it broadcasts live Bundesliga games each week), but unlike Sky, it’s no giant and hasn’t conquered the global news, sport and film agenda that Murdoch has already got in the UK and the USA. What’s more, his last foray into the German scene ended with the collapse of Kirch, another Pay TV network, after an ITV Digital-style disaster in 2002. But it’s a start, and one thing may lead to another. Let’s hope it does, and maybe things may get more exciting over here.In other news, check out the latest post on Harry de Quetteville’s Telegraph blog for an entertaining and concise take on 2007 in Germany, what to expect in 2008, why the upcoming regional elections are important and why Prenzlauer Berg is a very strange part of Berlin.

The REAL election '08The wonderfully named Guido Westerwelle, leader of Germany's centre-right liberal Free Democrats, has taken after Hillary Clinton (and everyone else) and called in his speech in Stuttgart today for 2008 to be a year of "politische Wende". That translates – you guessed it – as "political change".Originality clearly isn't a strength for politicians.
Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external sites

Enough about this FA Cup magic nonsense already! There's one reason why no one cares about the FA Cup any more. The final's no longer the only football match live on the telly each season. That's it. It's that simple. Football's moved on. Now we have the Champions League, and the FA Cup's just another fairly minor competition. Stop trying to engineer 'magic' and face the truth!That's got nothing to do with Germany. Sorry.

Welcome back, and happy new year.

Three weeks tomorrow, the state of Hesse goes to the polls in the regional elections certain to get zero coverage abroad. So I thought I’d do my best to keep you up to date with the ever so slightly overshadowed elections for the regional parliament here.

I know they sound minor, but the poll could give a good indication of how the national government are doing in Germany since their election in 2005. Angela Merkel, who became Chancellor of a Grand Coalition in a close election in September ’05, has struggled with reforms (including very unpopular plans to axe minimum wages for postal workers – not made easier by her having to work in coalition with the socialist SPD) and in the last few weeks has become the black sheep in Europe after she cried foul over EU plans to fine car manufacturers whose products hurt the environment. The plans, she says, would wreck the already suffering German car market.

Both moves are opposed by the left, but her strength on the international stage and a commitment to destroy German socialism are surely precisely the reasons she won two and a half years ago.

Only five of the 16 federal states have had regional elections since Merkel was in power, so how the Hessian candidates do should give us a good idea of the CDU’s popularity two and a bit years in. The CDU took almost 50% of the popular vote in 2003 at the last state vote, so any decrease on that would look distinctively bad for a party that won so closely on a national level.

Opinion polls don’t look good for them: the best poll for them puts them on just 43%, despite the emergence of the widely-publicised Die Linke, the far-left party with ads everywhere and a clear determination to have a real say. They may take votes off the rather establishment SPD, whose former leader Gerhard Schroeder was Chancellor for 8 years. In fact, the huge number of left-wing parties involved (SPD, the Greens, Die Linke and the Party for Social Equality) does a damned good job of splitting the liberal vote between like-minded groups. Maybe this will help the CDU. It doesn't seem to be doing so at the moment! Keep watching as it develops.

UPDATE: As if all this electoral craze wasn't exciting enough, I have just received a ballot slip in the post for the student parliament elections at the J. W. von Goethe University here in Frankfurt this month. Parties running include the usual lot (CDU, SPD) and an outfit calling itself the Giraffes. No idea what they're about. But the real disappointment was the lack of a familiar name (and face) on the candidates list. Sadly Dean Robson declined to run.

ANOTHER UPDATE: According to Monday's Frankfurter Rundschau we could be seeing two possible coalitions: a right-leaning one between the CDU and the FDP, and another left-wing one between the SPD, the Greens and Die Linke. The latter option would be a real kick in the teeth for the ruling CDU.

Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external sites