Tuesday 3rd June 2025
Blog Page 291

Professor Louise Richardson to leave position of Vice-Chancellor

0

Professor Louise Richardson is set to leave Oxford after a seven year term as the Vice-Chancellor. She will leave the role in December of 2022 and assume a new role as President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York in January of 2023. 

The Carnegie Corporation of New York is a philanthropic fund founded in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie in order to support education programs throughout the United States and the world. The Carnegie Corporation announced their new President today on their website, describing themselves as a “grant making foundation that inspires action in democracy, international peace, and education.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford explained that “the process of choosing a successor to Professor Richardson is already well-advanced. A committee charged with nominating the next Vice-Chancellor, led by the Chancellor, began work in July this year. It is expected to submit a name to the University’s Congregation for approval in summer 2022.”

Professor Richardson commented: “My time at Oxford has been the most exhilarating, challenging and rewarding period in my career, and there remains so much more to be done together in the year ahead. At Carnegie I will be leading a Foundation dedicated to my twin passions of education and peace, but Oxford – and my remarkable colleagues here – will never be far from my thoughts.”

Lord Patten of Barnes, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, said “Louise has confirmed to me that after seven years as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, she will take up the post of President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York in January 2023. I know Louise will serve Oxford in her last year in office with the same passion, strong leadership and unending energy which has delivered so much for the University. When Louise finally leaves, she will depart with our very best wishes and deepest thanks.”

Image: Alan Richardson/CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Philippines presidential candidate did not complete Oxford degree as he claims

0

The University of Oxford has confirmed that Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr., candidate in the upcoming presidential election in the Philippines, did not complete his degree at the University. 

Mr. Marcos Jr. has claimed repeatedly in the past that he obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) from St. Edmund Hall, and has used his degree and academic background to argue that he is uniquely qualified to be the President of the Philippines. 

However, Oxford University has confirmed that this claim is partly false. Although Mr. Marcos Jr. did matriculate at St. Edmund Hall in 1975, Oxford has said “according to our records, he did not complete his degree, but was awarded a special diploma in Social Studies in 1978.”

This sort of Special Diploma is not considered as prestigious as a full degree, and was often awarded to students who failed to complete their degree.

The university confirmed in 2015 that Marcos Jr. never completed his degree, and an article on his own campaign website prints the statement of the Oxford Philippines Society: “Marcos failed his degree’s preliminary examinations at the first attempt. Passing the preliminary examinations is a prerequisite for continuing one’s studies and completing a degree at Oxford University.”

The issue first arose in 2015 when it was noticed that his profile on the Philippines Senate website displayed the claim that he obtained a PPE degree. 

This is not the only degree course he never finished. He enrolled at the Wharton School of Business, part of the University of Pennsylvania, for a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, but dropped out in 1980 prior to his election as Vice Governor of the Ilocos Norte province. He also claimed on his Senate profile to have completed his MBA at Wharton.

‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. is the son of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., a former President of the Philippines from 1965-1986, who ruled under martial law from 1972-1981. His dictatorship was notorious for brutality and corruption, and a revolution in 1986 forced him and his family into exile in Hawaii.

Marcos Jr. began his political rise at the age of 23 while his father was still in charge, but since the return from exile he has continued this career, being elected as a Representative, Governor and most recently as a Senator. 

In 1995 he was convicted for tax evasion, and in 1997 received a prison sentence of three years. He was further involved in controversy during his failed 2016 Vice-Presidential campaign, after which he publicly challenged the results, despite a 2018 recount showing his opponent’s lead actually increasing.

His election campaign this year to succeed Rodrigo Duterte, whose presidency saw a strict and bloody campaign against illegal drugs and potential human rights abuses, is backed by the ‘Partido Federal ng Pilipinas’, which supports Duterte. Other candidates include social democrat Ronald dela Rosa, current Vice President Leni Robredo and former boxer Manny Pacquiao. Sara Duterte, the daughter of the President and current mayor of Davao City, is running for Vice President. Her campaign is allied with Marco’s presidential campaign.

This article was corrected on November 18th at 14:45 to update the current state of the Presidential Race.

Update at November 19th, 1:16AM: spelling corrections.

Image Credit: Alvin678/CC BY-SA 2.0 via flickr

AstraZeneca will start making profits from Oxford vaccine

0

The Anglo-Swedish drug giant declared in their latest financial results that “the company is now expecting to progressively transition the vaccine to modest profitability as new orders are received”.  However, the vaccine will remain non-profitable in developing countries. 

AstraZeneca had previously promised that they would administer the jab on a not-for-profit basis “at cost”, and would only start to make money from the vaccine when Covid-19 was no longer considered to be a pandemic. 

After consulting with experts, Chief Executive of AstraZeneca, Pascal Soriot, has said that the disease was becoming endemic; he added that contracts that have been signed are for next year and that “this virus is becoming endemic which means we have to learn to live with it”. Mr Soriot told the Financial Times in May that he did not know when the pandemic could be considered to be over and that this decision would be made on a country by country basis. 

Mr Soriot previously stated: “We decided to provide it at no profit, because our top priority was to protect global health”. We are all very proud as a company of the impact that we’ve had. We are the second largest vaccine in the world in terms of volume, we saved millions of hospitalisations, and we estimate about a million lives”.

The Chief Executive said to the BBC that he had “absolutely no regrets” about not making a profit during the pandemic when other drug competitors were. Pfizer and Moderna have both received profits from their vaccines. 

Soriot added that the vaccine is “not something we see as a huge profit-earner”. The average expected profit margin in the drugs industry is around 20%. However, Mr Soriot said that AstraZeneca, which charges $5 per shot of the vaccine at cost price, would not see that percentage of profit. Pfizer has said its profit margins are in the high 20 percentage points which are split with partner BioNTech. Pfizer generated $13 billion in sales from its vaccine in the third quarter compared with AstraZeneca’s $1.05 billion. 

The drugmaker anticipates profiting on the vaccine this quarter as they have agreed new sales commitments in addition to those made during the pandemic. Mr Soriot said that he expects a “solid finish” to the year and that “Our broad portfolio of medicines and diversified geographic exposure provides a robust platform for long-term sustainable growth’. 

Money obtained from the profits will be reinvested into the development of the antibody treatment for the virus. Last month the company revealed positive results from their trial of the Covid-19 symptom treatment which they are producing alongside the vaccine. The treatment, composed of two antibodies, is undergoing final clinical trials to test its safety and efficiency. 

By the end of 2021, AstraZeneca estimates to have supplied 250 million doses of the vaccine to the Covax programme for developing countries. Whilst the vaccine has received criticism for issues including rare blood clots and mistakes in clinical trials which have knocked AstraZeneca’s global reputation, it remains key in the Covax sharing initiative.

As of September 2021, AstraZeneca and its partners have supplied 1.5 billion doses worldwide in over 170 countries. 

Image: Gencat / CC0 1.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Catholic society honoured controversial Cardinal with five course banquet

0

The Oxford University Catholic Society, the Newman society, has come under fire for inviting the controversial Cardinal George Pell to give this year’s St Thomas More Lecture. The lecture was followed by a drinks reception and five course black-tie dinner held in Cardinal Pell’s honour.

Pell was sentenced to six years in prison in 2019 over five counts of sexual abuse, before his convictions were quashed in 2020. The lecture discussed: “the Church’s suffering in our post-Christian society”.

The St Thomas More lecture is an annual event, which was inaugurated by Cardinal Pell himself when he was Archbishop of Sydney in 2009. The cardinal is an alumnus of the University, having graduated with a DPhil in 1971, and is a Patron of the Society. 

The cardinal served as Archbishop of Melbourne and Sydney, becoming a Cardinal in 2001. He was later appointed to be the first prefect of the newly created Secretariat for the Economy for the Holy See. In this capacity, he was considered one of the more powerful figures in the Vatican. More broadly, he was known for his adherence to Church orthodoxy and his public debates with atheists and non-adherents. 

In 2017, Pell was charged five sexual assault offences against children. One of these charges was dropped in 2018. The alleged sexual assaults took place when Pell was a priest and later an Bishop in Melbourne. 

A jury found Pell guilty of five counts of sexual abuse in 2018, and he was sentenced to serve six years in prison. His first appeal with the Victoria Supreme Court was unsuccessful, before the Australian High Court unanimously voted to quash his conviction. The High Court said at the time that “Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility … that an innocent person has been convicted.”

Despite the acquittal, Pell continues to be a controversial figure in the modern Catholic church. The organiser of a protest against the Cardinal’s presence, who is also a practicing Catholic, says: “It is egregious that Cardinal Pell should be speaking about the suffering of the CHURCH when in 2017 Australia’s royal commission into child sexual abuse found that in 1973, “Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but he also considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.” This was only released last year because at the time the Cardinal was appealing his own conviction for child sexual abuse.”

The organiser told The Tablet that hosting Pell was “shockingly insensitive” and added: “Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but he also considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it.”

In response, the President of the Newman society, Vincent Elvin, told Cherwell that: “The Newman Society and our members deplore the scourge of sexual abuse which has afflicted

Holy Church in recent decades” but that “As for those allegations which have not been subject to trial in the judicial system, the Society is unable to make its own judgement on these, but is instead guided by Holy Church. In particular, the reception of Cardinal Pell by the Holy Father in October 2020 is a sign for us of the good standing of the Cardinal within the Church.

“It is on the basis that Cardinal Pell has been exonerated, and received in good standing by members of the Hierarchy, that the Society is confident in its position to mirror those shepherds of the Church by welcoming the Cardinal and inviting him to give the St Thomas More Lecture.

“In the post-Christian society seen in this country and throughout the West, we find that many of the individuals who make up that sacred Body are indeed suffering for their faith. Cardinal Pell’s experiences are a particularly stark example, but ordinary Christians suffer in less obvious and less visible ways.”

Cardinal Pell has been approached for comment through the Vatican.

Image: Kerry Myers/CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Oxford’s first ‘hacker house’: For the RICH, by the RICH?

0

RICH – Rebellious, Intellectually Curious Hustlers. These are the people Jack Chong wanted to live with when he started looking for a house to rent during his final year of PPE. So he put out a manifesto for “the first hacker house for young startup founders in the entire United Kingdom”.

After spending a summer in San Francisco, Jack says he wanted to bring the culture from Silicon Valley to Oxford. And what exactly is that culture? According to his manifesto: “An Oxford education undermines intellectual curiosity. The ego is the enemy. Anyone with the prestige of Oxford (or Harvard, or Stanford) will likely care about who is right, not what is right. University education is meant to preach the radical pursuit of truth. It failed its purpose and now is at the risk of being unbundled. We want to be formidable by radically pursuing truth.” 

And while you could be forgiven for mistaking parts of Jack’s programme for an excerpt from The Social Network, he and his flatmates are not just all talk. One of them, James O’Leary, has raised over £200,000 for his Non-Fungible Token (NFT) football manager game Footium. Speaking to Cherwell, James said: “Living with motivated people is a great catalyst for improving one’s own motivation, and I’ve found it to be useful so far. I truly believe that the RICH house is a great initiative for aggregating people of similar interests, [and] I think that the RICH house allows people who are passionate to connect with a network of people without having to fall at the barrier of formal credentialism.” Jack, who refers to himself as “Chief Meme Officer”, has built companies and products from education technology to drug testing AI software. He currently runs OX1 Incubator which awards more than £15,000 in equity-free grants annually to idea-stage startups. 

The idea of “hacker houses” isn’t new. In San Francisco, home to tomorrow’s billion-dollar startups and tech founders in Patagonia vests, they’ve been an integral part of Bay Area entrepreneurism since the early 2000s. Inspired by a mix of curiosity and soaring housing prices, young builders are banding together in co-living spaces, working on collaborative startup projects and securing funding rounds well in excess of a million dollars, while hosting speaker events and think tank sessions on the weekends. Jack told me that living with other builders has allowed for great synergy: James inspired him to join a coding bootcamp and thanks to his other housemates’ extensive experience in cryptocurrency and quantitative finance, their kitchen table chats never get boring.

Do hacker houses make start-up culture more accessible? Or are they prone to creating exclusive spaces for the few that have the right connections and understand the latest tech buzzwords? Granted, both Jack and James went to elite private schools and the RICH house’s gender diversity score could probably be improved (like many of its counterparts in the United States, it has so far been exclusively inhabited by men). But speaking to Jack, I learned that everyone can be a Rebellious Intellectually Curious Hustler (RICH) with the right motivation, the right readings, and the right goals. He believes that “gatekeepers suck value out of a network” and assures you that even if you’re only a fresher, if you’re already working on cool projects, you will be as respected as anyone else in the house.

It’s easy to understand Jack’s frustration with the state of entrepreneurial culture at Oxford. At a university where one needs to obtain special permission just to take on a part-time job while students across the big pond are building the next Facebook or Uber, it’s not hard to agree with his manifesto claim: “Oxford is all about thinking and talking with no doing.” Sharing a living space with like-minded people could not only boost productivity, it also provides company in the lonely periods that every startup founder must go through. And if you’re a young builder yourself, maybe this is the sign you’ve been waiting for. 

Great men on vacation: The reporting of Boris’ holiday

0

The objections to Boris Johnson’s recent holiday to a private villa on the Costa del Sol fall into two broad categories. The first are reasonable yet misguided; the second are completely unhelpful for the politically minded and contribute to a larger problem with political reporting.

On the first objection, the Daily Mail headline read ‘Boris Johnson quietly reveals Zac Goldsmith, the millionaire minister he made a peer, gave him and his family a summer holiday at £25,000-a-night Marbella estate for FREE‘ and, on the other side of the aisle, the Guardian’s headline was similar ‘Goldsmith family funded Boris Johnson’s Marbella holiday‘. They do have a point. The Johnson cabinet is, to use Kier Starmer’s words “wallowing in sleaze” and, more distressingly, they hope to solve this by going deeper into scandal, shoving through bills that curtail the power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone. Luckily, the Johnson administration backed down under public pressure, but Stone knows now that if she wants to dig deeper into Boris’ renovations, his Tory donor financed holiday to the Caribbean in 2019, or even Matt Hancock’s handling of government contracts, then her time is running out.

I doubt however that one of the many items on her hit list will be Johnson’s holiday to Costa del Sol. Boris gave out the peerage and role of environment secretary to Zac Goldsmith in late 2019 and Goldsmith was already a friend of his wife before this. Boris could not successfully plan the Christmas lockdown a week in advance, and I find it hard to believe he planned his holiday three years in advance and expended substantial political capital on it. This seems to me clearly like a case of nepotism informing a cabinet position and peerage placement. It is not a bribe-by-villa.

Coming to the second objection, I thought it was put clearest by Jason Moore from the Majorca Daily Bulletin, no doubt snubbed by Johnson’s choice of holiday location, who concluded that “if you feel the need for a holiday in the sun then perhaps you shouldn’t be PM”. Though not as crudely stated, this sentiment is also seen in the numerous headlines: ‘Boris Johnson goes on holiday to Marbella –  but is the timing right?‘, ‘No 10 defends Boris Johnson’s holiday in Spain amid energy crisis‘, and ‘Boris Johnson ‘jets off for holiday in Marbella’ leaving behind UK in crisis‘. All these headlines question Johnson’s timing and contrast his holiday to the UK’s oil crisis, my favourite of which is The Mirror’s sassy headline ‘Boris Johnson leaves luxury holiday estate in Spain to finally return to crisis-hit UK.’ Of course, some defend his right to vacation, including a Daily Mail commentator who says that he must rest for the “mighty battles” ahead, which include such menaces as “overly expensive green schemes” and “illegal migration, especially across the channel”.

In my opinion, both sides make the same mistake here. They obsess over the leading man, either worrying that the holiday leaves us stranded or that it is necessary for him to rest before single-handedly facing the battles ahead. All of it leads to propping up the cult of personality that separates Boris from his party infrastructure. This is greatly appreciated by No. 10, who have obsessively insisted that Boris is always their commander in chief. If he is on holiday he is in “regular WhatsApp contact“, if he is lying in a hospital bed he “continues to lead“, and if he is in critical condition he will “be back at the helm in short order“.

All together it becomes quite a ghoulish use of the great-man theory and a thoroughly ill-conceived way of understanding government. The inadequacies in immigration policy, lorry driver pay, green energy funding, and fuel reserves that led to the crisis in question have little to do with Boris’ guiding hand and a lot to do with the last 20 years of governance. Moreover, if we are to look for immediate action, is Boris Johnson the only true voice of the people? Could we not press the Secretary for Energy, Greg Hands, or the numerous professional advisors surrounding him, or the many MPs elected by their district? Even when Boris returns these are the people who will affect, and often take, the decisions of the Government, and obsessively focusing on Boris lets him be the one-man army he wishes he was. No one should be too important to take a week off work, least of all Boris Johnson.

Image Credit: Arno Mikkor / CC BY 2.0

Over a third of UK Government COP26 advisors associated with Oxbridge

0

The UK Government was advised by the “Friends of COP” during the last global climate summit. Over a third of the “Friends of COP” were associated with either Oxford or Cambridge, and over a quarter four attended Russell Group Universities for their studies. 

The world’s summit on climate change, COP26, took place from 31st October to 12th November. It was hosted by the UK government and set in Glasgow. The UK Government has 30 advisors for the upcoming discussions, who “bring expertise from countries across six continents, including France, Barbados, Chad, Australia, India and Peru”.

Yet the group also showed a high number of individuals associated with the UK’s most prestigious universities. Over a third of the advisors were associated with Oxbridge, and over a quarter attended Russell Group universities for their studies. 

The “Friends of COP” included at least six individuals associated with Oxford University: two Oxford Professors, Nathalie Seddon, Professor of Biodiversity and Peter G. Bruce, Professor of Materials; three Oxford alumni; and an advisor to Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute.

Six of the “Friends” were associated with Cambridge University: one Cambridge professor; four Cambridge alumni; and one honorary degree holder.

Nicholas Stern, author of the landmark ‘Stern report’ detailing the economic costs of climate change, attended both Oxford and Cambridge as a student. He has held professorships at Russell Group Universities Cambridge and Warwick, and is currently working at LSE.

The UK also appointed people to be part of its “Team”. Members of the Team included key figures like President of COP Alok Sharma, the “COP26 Unit” composed of strategists and organisational managers, and “COP26 ambassadors” composed of specialists in particular areas, e.g. gender or the Middle East and Africa. Of this team, at least a fifth attended either Oxford or Cambridge as students.

The dominance of Oxbridge alumni and associates in climate research is part of a larger imbalance in the field of climate science and politics. According to Carbon Brief, academics from the Global South are very underrepresented in the field of climate science, with only five African scientists included in the Reuters Hot List of the 1 000 most influential climate scientists. 

The Climate Action Network (CAN), a group of more than 1 500 civil society organisations, warned that many  delegates from the Global South may be unable to attend the COP26 due to the COVID related entry restrictions, such as vaccine requirements or the costs of quarantine hotels. They argued that the talks should be postponed to avoid the COP26 becoming a “rich nations stitch-up”. The UK Government offered to help with costs. 

The information about place of study was obtained from the Public domain, primarily via LinkedIn. 

Image credit: Jean-Luc Benazet on Unsplash