Oxford’s Department of Plant Sciences conducted a study on the ability of pea plants to allocate resources efficiently. The study found that pea plants are able to allocate sugar to symbiotic bacterial partners based on their effectiveness and conditional on the availability of better alternatives. The researchers hope that their insights might help reduce the need for artificial nitrogen-based fertilisers.
As global agriculture intensifies, the demand for nitrogen-based fertilisers is set to increase. They are produced by the Haber process, which uses natural gas to produce ammonia. The Haber process is highly energy-intensive, contributing to climate change as fossil fuels are burned to provide power. In addition, the use of these fertilisers has damaging effects on local ecosystems, creating ‘dead zones’ and harmful algal blooms.
Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for all plants, and is the limiting factor for much of global plant growth. However, most plants cannot absorb nitrogen from the air and are only able to absorb it from the soil via their roots. This is where legumes such as pea plants come in.
Legumes are able to form mutually-beneficial (symbiotic) relationships with bacteria in the soil called rhizobia bacteria. These bacteria are able to convert nitrogen into ammonium, which plants are able to absorb and use – a process referred to as “fixing nitrogen”. In return, the legumes house the bacteria in specialised root nodules, and supply them with energy-rich sugars.
Most pea plants house multiple different rhizobia (soil bacteria) strains, which vary in their ability to fix nitrogen. Having only a limited sugar supply, pea plants need to ‘choose’ which strains to supply.
Before the study, researchers already knew that pea plants cut off the sugar supply to non-fixing strains. However, there had been no investigation into the allocation between strains with different levels of effectiveness.
To research this allocation process, the researchers treated the plants with a genetically engineered strain with an intermediate ability to fix nitrogen. The pea plants responded to this strain differently based on the other available options: if only worse fixers were available, the plant supplied a lot of sugar and the bacteria-housing nodule grew large; if a better fixer was available, the sugar supply was cut off, and the nodule shrunk.
However, sugar was not simply allocated in proportion to the nitrogen supplied. Instead, less efficient rhizobia strains were sanctioned early on when better strains became available, suggesting that pea plants have a sort of mechanism allowing them to compare the effectiveness of different bacteria.
Professor Phil Poole, a co-supervisor of the study said: “Understanding how plants manage their interactions with bacteria could help us select plants which are better at choosing effective bacterial partners. This could reduce the demand for nitrogen fertilisers”.
Dr Lindsay Turnbull, another co-supervisor, said: “This is a key development as previous research in this area used naturally-occurring bacteria which may have differed in many characteristics. In this study, the bacterial strains were genetically altered to provide different levels of nitrogen, so we can be sure that changes in the plant’s response are due to differences in their ability to supply nitrogen”.
Most films which play mind games with their viewers tend to be working towards some sort of hyper-intellectual ‘gotcha’ moment. The Father, which follows a vulnerable pensioner losing touch with reality plays many of these cinematographic tricks. In this case, however, the audience is sadly all too familiar with the reason why. An intimate yet harrowing insight into what it is like to experience dementia, The Father isn’t trying to catch anyone out. Its trippy chronology and haunting visuals simply attempt to illustrate how distressing this disease can be.
The film is an adaptation of the French filmmaker and playwright Florian Zeller, who also directs this iteration of the story. Directed by French filmmaker and playwright Florian Zeller, the film is an adaptation of his award-winning 2012 play, Le Père. Despite recently snapping up Oscars for both Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor, this is not the story’s first on-screen incarnation. In 2015, director Philippe Le Guay took the play as the premise for his dramatic comedy Floride (‘Florida’). Le Guay took vast liberties with Zeller’s script in order to lighten the mood, inventing a father figure who is more cheeky grandpa than broken old man. Back in the hands of the original author, however, The Father’s tone is suitably dark given its subject matter.
When we first meet Anthony (Anthony Hopkins), he seems to be fairly capable of looking after himself. He potters about his spacious London flat and even pops to the shops. But it swiftly becomes obvious that his memory has a habit of failing him. He forgets where he has put things, what he has said, and to whom he has said it. When his daughter, Anne (Olivia Coleman), finds out his behaviour has resulted in yet another carer abandoning her, the impact that this disease has upon the family unit becomes glaringly apparent.
Back in April, this performance earned Hopkins – who is 83 – the accolade of being the oldest person ever to win an Oscar for acting. But as much as this is necessarily an old man’s role, it never feels stuffy or clichéd. Rather, Hopkins is dynamic in part because of how frighteningly unpredictable dementia can be: at times Anthony is playful and charming, at others aggressive and confused. Coleman plays the part of the daughter to perfection, but the role is relatively constricted. We are only ever allowed glimpses into how Anne really feels, be it in her forced smiles or overzealous apologies on her father’s behalf, for the story is told almost exclusively from Anthony’s perspective. The take is an original one, but the result is often jarring. At times, the film feels more like a subdued horror with the jump-scares replaced by time-jumps, time-loops, and figures mysteriously appearing from previously empty rooms. Of course, this is the point, but with no reprieve from the disorientating unreality of Anthony’s mind, one may well feel quite battered when the 97 minute run time is up.
With that being said, there can be no doubt that this film is moving. But it is not touching in the usual, tender-yet-heart-warming sense that we have come to expect of Hollywood. This is a story that is moving in its unrelenting authenticity. It is, like the disease it so honestly portrays, bleak to the very end. Perhaps most striking, though, is its cool colour palette. Almost everything – even down to Anthony’s pyjamas – is painted in chilly blue tones, creating a stale, almost insipid, atmosphere of detachment. This careful curation anticipates one of the most poignant moments of the film when Anne, rifling through her father’s blue-grey wardrobe, comes to linger on a golden coloured tie as if concentrated in its vibrant colour is the life of the man who once wore it.
The Father is not a comforting watch, nor does it ever claim to be. It reinvents the modern family psychodrama by placing an all too familiar real-life tragedy at its epicentre. This is why it feels so relentless: if films are what we turn to in order to escape reality, The Father refuses us the pleasure. It is precisely this which makes it a must-see.
Researchers from the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) have revealed their findings from an eight-year study of 12,000 British teenagers into the impacts of social media on their overall life satisfaction. The data from the study suggests that links between social media use and life satisfaction are minimal.
This is the first large-scale study focused on this issue. Prior to this scientists were unsure of the ‘direction’ of any causal link; whether adolescents had lower life satisfaction due to social media use, or whether those with lower life satisfaction use more social media.
Although the scientists who carried out the study concluded that the links were mostly trivial, there was some evidence of causality. Generally, these effects were also more clearly seen among women than among men.
The researchers did note that due to a lack of a political, ethical, and scientific framework for sharing detailed usage data from social media companies, their research was limited to the use of self-reported social media data.
Professor Przybylski, Director of Research at the OII, said: “Given the rapid pace of technological advancement in recent years, the question of how our increasing use of technology to interact with each other affects our wellbeing has become increasingly important. With most of the current debate based on lacklustre evidence, this study represents an important step towards mapping the effects of technology on adolescent well-being.
“Moving forward access to this kind of data will be key to understanding the many roles that social media plays in the lives of young people.”
Amy Orben, College Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Oxford, also said: “The previous literature was based almost entirely on correlations with no means to dissociate whether social media use leads to changes in life satisfaction or changes in life satisfaction influence social media use.
“While our study is a very promising step towards robust science in this area, it is only the first step. To ultimately understand how the diverse uses of social media affect teenagers we need industry data.”
Another researcher, Dr Tobias Dienlin from the University of Hohenheim, added: “More than half of the statistical models we tested were not significant, and those that were significant suggested the effects were not as simple as often stated in the media. Most statistically significant models examined teenage girls. However, because these effects were tiny, they weren’t significantly larger in girls compared to boys.”
The latest Office of National Statistics (ONS) data has shown that 80% of students have returned to their university address in spite of government guidance. The ONS shows that 82% of students were residing at their term-time address in April 2021, with just 36% living with their parents. The number of students living at their university address has increased from 76% in March 2021 when 41% of students reported staying with their parents.
The ONS’ Student COVID-19 Insights Survey (SCIS) measures over 1,400 university students and took place from 15th – 22nd April 2021. The survey began a day after students were told face-to-face teaching could return from 17th May.
Students undertaking practical-based courses, including medicine and creative courses, have been allowed to return to their university addresses as they require face-to-face teaching. Government guidance for universities states that “remaining higher education students can return to in-person teaching and learning, the Government advises that these students can return from 17 May, alongside Step 3 of the Roadmap.”
In a statement on 13th April 2021, Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, said “students should continue to learn remotely and remain where they are living, wherever possible” until 17th May.
“The movement of students across the country poses a risk for the transmission of the virus – particularly because of the higher prevalence and rates of transmission of new variants.”
Matt Western, the Shadow Universities Minister for the Labour Party said “the Government has treated children and young people as an afterthought throughout this pandemic, and students have been left without information or support.”
Students have been allowed to return prior to this date under “exceptional” circumstances which include having inadequate workspaces at their home addresses and suffering from worsening mental health. The ONS survey found over half (53%) of students felt their mental health worsen from Autumn 2020, though this has decreased from 63%, reported in March.
A motion to remove the Sackler Library name from the Bodleian Libraries building has been passed by the Student Union. The motion, heard in the 3rd-week council meeting, was passed by 89% with 40 votes, 5 against and 6 abstentions.
The motion has mandated the SU President and Vice-President Charities and Community to lobby the Oxford University to drop the Sackler name from the building due to their involvement in the opioid epidemics in the U.S.
The wealth of the Sackler Library was raised in part by the Sackler family who are associated with the US opioid crisis. The Sackler family owns Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical company which played a role in the epidemic which killed over 500,000 Americans alone since 1999, according to Bloomberg News.
Purdue Pharma introduced the prescription painkiller and opioid OxyContin which they heavily promoted. Aside from offering pain relief, misuse of OxyContin can result in addiction, overdose, and death. Perdue Pharma has faced over 1,600 lawsuits regarding the widely available painkiller. Following a 2007 lawsuit, Purdue Pharma paid $600 million in fines for misleading regulators, doctors, and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and its potential for abuse.
Oxford University has received over £11 million in donations from the Sacklers. The Sackler Family Trust and the Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation have made several philanthropic donations to UK institutions, including the National Gallery, Tate Modern, and UCL, amounting to £80 million. They are estimated to be America’s 30th richest family, according to Forbes.
The proposer of the SU motion, Marco Rodriguez, told Cherwell that Oxford is displaying “no intentions to review past or current contributions from this family, and it is publicly reiterating their intentions to continue receiving funds from them.”
“It would be difficult, if not impossible, [for Oxford University] to dissociate their funding with all the pain and sorrow the abuse of Oxycontin has brought to American society. The faster Oxford breaks links with this name, the better.”
“We can conclude that the Student Union may not have the power to change Oxford’s decision but certainly has the moral ground. It indeed has the right (legitimacy) to define a principled stand on behalf of the students, be public about, and criticize the University’s decision.”
Rodriguez commented on the difficulty of higher education institutions to obtain funding which coerces them to turn to individual sources: “We also must accept that universities in the UK must rely on different funding sources rather than public funds, as the government contribution to higher education has diminished progressively… [There is] considerable pressure on raising funds from other sources, especially from wealthy private individuals or corporate funds.”
In regards to receiving philanthropic donations, a spokesperson for the Bodleian Libraries told Cherwell: “All major prospective donors are carefully considered by the University’s Committee to Review Donations under the University’s guidelines for acceptance. The Committee considers the sources of an individual’s or organisation’s wealth and may reconsider a donor in the light of new information. The University monitors significant developments in the public domain and the Committee considers donors when potential donations are brought to their attention.”
Oxford University, Purdue Pharma, and the Sackler Family Trust have been contacted for comment.
Aston University in Birmingham and London South Bank University have announced plans to cut History courses. Aston University plans to close its entire History, Languages and Translation Centre, whilst London South Bank will terminate its History, Human Geography, Refugee Studies, Development Studies and Education for Sustainability courses. Experts warn that the trend may be replicated elsewhere, as the government seeks to champion perceived ‘high-value’ STEM and vocational courses.
The cuts follow Education Secretary Gavin Williamson’s proposals to require financially struggling universities to close so-called ‘low value’ courses with low graduate pay, to qualify for Covid-19 recovery bailouts. The bailout requirements require the affected universities’ ‘commitment’ to free speech. The University and College Union’s general secretary Jo Grady said these twin conditions are evidence that ‘the government is prepared to exploit universities’ financial difficulties to impose evidence-free ideology and reduce the diversity and strength in depth of university courses and research’.
The projected closures have generated concerns that History, Languages and humanities studies may become the preserve of the elite, with those unable to leave home to study less able to access the subjects, which are available at less universities. Popular historical author and Professor of Public Engagement with History at the University of Reading, Kate Williams, told The Guardian that History ‘should be a degree that is open to all, and that means it must be available to those who want to study locally’.
Older universities have been able to recruit more History, Languages and humanities students following the removal of the cap on student numbers. This has been detrimental to smaller History and humanities departments elsewhere, with fewer than 40 of London South Bank’s 7000 students enrolled this year in the programmes it seeks to cut.
Professor Catherine Fletcher of Manchester Metropolitan University said this disparity ‘gives more choice to some students, but leaves others from less privileged backgrounds with no options at all’, raising further concern over the pressure on academics in expanding History departments at Russell Group universities.
The Universities and Colleges Union protests the cuts, particularly given their impact on academics at the affected universities. London South Bank History Academic Sami told the Socialist Worker that the LSBU cuts were a ‘kick in the teeth’, particularly as the courses were pulled…from UCAS before telling staff’.
Some commentators have noted that History graduates are indeed ‘employable’, with British Academy research indicating that eight of the 10 fastest-growing sectors in the UK economy employ more graduates from the arts, humanities and social sciences than other disciplines. Others have criticised the metric of valuing higher education courses based on their employability prospects, with Ms Grady lamenting the underemphasis on ‘critical thought’ as a desirable component of university education, rather viewing education ‘in crude economic terms’ as she feels the government has done .
An Aston University spokesperson said: “This is an open and ongoing consultation, and we are in discussions with potentially impacted colleagues and UCU. We are unable to comment further at this stage.”
A spokesperson for London South Bank University (LSBU) said, “Decisions around the courses we offer to prospective students are taken very carefully. We regularly consider how our courses provide students with the skills they need to enter high quality jobs or further study, previous enrollment levels and how they support LSBU’s strategic goals including social mobility and removing barriers to student success.”
“Out of LSBU’s 7,000 new entrants in the 2020/21 academic year, less than 40 enrolled against the seven courses that are closing. We want to re-shape and re-energise our offer to strengthen our student’s teaching experience and research outcomes.”
“Our long-term ambition is to increase total spend on LSBU staff involved in educational delivery by 2025. This includes increasing the quality of contact through small group teaching with a focus on ensuring students have the skills, experience and knowledge to progress to high quality employment or further study.”
The latest escalation in the decades-long state of tension between Israel and Palestine has seen at least 230 Palestinians, including 65 children, killed over 11 days by rocket fire from Israel. Over 50,000 Palestinians have been displaced. In the same period 12 Israelis, including two children, have been killed. Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defense system has prevented many rockets fired by Hamas from reaching their target.
After mounting international pressure Hamas and Israel agreed to a ceasefire commencing at 23:00 GMT on May 20th (2:00 on May 21st local time). President Biden has hailed the moment as a “genuine opportunity to make progress”. But how can diplomats solve a crisis which has been ongoing for over 70 years?
Tom Fletcher began his diplomatic career in Kenya and France, before serving as a foreign policy advisor to Prime Ministers Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, and David Cameron. In 2011, he became the youngest senior British Ambassador in 200 years when he took up the post of Ambassador to Lebanon. In 2020, he took up the post of Principal at Hertford College, where he read Modern History.
Cherwell: Arguably, this is one of the most difficult geopolitical challenges in the world to solve. How have we got here?
TF: “It’s a great question. If it was easy we’d have done it a long time ago. Very smart diplomats and peacemakers have been working on this for decades since 1948. I still think that at its root there is a simplicity to this, which is that you need two states: a state of Israel and a state of Palestine, where the rights of Israelis and Palestinians are considered equally. But it’s much harder to actually deliver that.”
2021 marks 73 years since the Nakba, which saw Palestinians forced to leave their homes. Has the fact this crisis has continued for decades made it harder to resolve? “There have been moments when a two-state solution felt much more possible. I was actually in Israel-Palestine in 1994 when there was a sense of things moving in the right direction. The populations themselves were more optimistic; Yasser Arafat came back and there was this sense that there was a deal to be made, which was basically land-for-peace. The problem is the politics. The politics on one side or the other doesn’t quite work so often.”
Protesters at a Pro-Palestine demonstration in Oxford on May 16th. Image: Sasha Mills
President Biden has called for a ceasefire, despite the United States recently vetoing a UN Security Council statement calling for just that. What is the US trying to do at the moment?
“The good news is that, unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden isn’t fanning the flames. I’ve been saying I don’t think he’s doing enough yet to put them out. But, I think we can be encouraged that Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan are people with huge amounts of national security experience dealing with Israel-Palestine. They know the leaders very well.
“I feel more confident that they are putting that pressure on behind the scenes. I know from talking to people at the White House that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure for a ceasefire. It’s great that they’re now calling for that publicly.
“Often, the tactic is that America will blunt criticism of Israel in public, in order to put more pressure on them in private. They’ll say to Number 10 or the Elyseé: ‘Don’t push for a [UN Security Council] resolution on this. Give us more time. We need more time to convince the Israelis to stop.’ That’s the normal dynamic at these moments.”
Have the actions of the Trump administration exacerbated the situation?
“They have. There was obviously no pressure during that time for Israel and Palestine to actually come to the peace table in a serious way. Almost everything that Donald Trump did made it harder to come to the table. For example, the Americans knew that moving the embassy to Jerusalem was very provocative for many in the region, not just the Palestinians.
“Also, in that period there was a sense that Netenyahu knew he could expand settlements as much as he wanted, and there would be no criticism. That really did build much of the pressure that has led to this point.”
What steps can the UK government take to help calm the situation?
“The most important thing the UK can do is push in public and in private for a ceasefire and for real diplomacy towards a two-state solution. Importantly, the UK – even with aid cuts – is still a big aid donor and has an important voice in trying to get humanitarian access. At the moment, Israel is blocking that access. It’s vital to get in there: hospitals and schools have been damaged. We’ve got to get in and start to rebuild.
“The UK does have ways to put pressure on the parties on the ground to get them back to the negotiating table. I wouldn’t want to be too prescriptive about what those are, because it’s quite good to go into a negotiating room and have those options.”
According to UNICEF, there are 192,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. When you were the Ambassador to Lebanon, how aware of the situation in Israel-Palestine did you have to be?
“Many of the Palestinian refugees who fled Israel and Palestine in 1948 and 1967, many driven from their homes, have become double or treble refugees. They had to flee again because of the civil war in Lebanon. In some cases, they fled to Syria, and then became refugees again. So you have that trauma going down through generations.
“It was often a dynamic we had to be very aware of. When there was violence across the Israel-Gaza border, it was often likely that rockets would come across the Lebanon-Israel border as well. There was always a danger that Israel would smash up the south of Lebanon, or that Hezbollah would fire rockets at the north of Israel at civilians. We were always we’d move very fast with the UN to try and de-escalate those situations.
“It was also a big dynamic because Hezbollah was the most powerful political group in Lebanon, when I was there. Of course, Israel was very unhappy about that. Many of us were very unhappy about the power Hezbollah had. But they were a political actor in their own right. As embassies, that was a difficult dynamic for us.
“I used to always say about the kinds of challenges Lebanon faces around coexistence and living together despite our differences; if we can’t crack those in Lebanon, we’ll face them closer to home as well. I think that in the five years since I’ve left Lebanon, you can see the way those arguments are now playing out in our own society.”
What lessons have you learned from working with the Lebanese government, which is divided along sectarian lines, to promote stability and human rights? How can these lessons be applied to the Israel-Palestine crisis?
“I think you have to recognise the historical roots of much of this. Part of the work of diplomacy, and of being a good ancestor, is to think about healing the wounds of history. What are the grievances and judgements that we inherit that we should pass on?And, what are the grievances and injustices and hatreds that we must not pass on? I think working that out is the most important work of an ancestor.
“Education is also really important. For me, education is upstream diplomacy. It’s why I’m now in Oxford. A project we did in Lebanon was to work with the different religious groups on ‘how do you teach people from other groups about your religion?’. What we found was that in most schools you were taught purely by people from your own religious group. They would say: ‘the people down the road that look different, or worship a different god, or worship in a different way, they hate us. So we have to hate them,’. We got the 19 religious groups together, to try and get them to find a common way of teaching about each other. It was really complex, but it’s really important.
“I think that the more Israelis learn about Palestinians, and Palestinians learn about Israelis, the more people-to-people contact there is, more people can understand they have more in common than what divides us.”
Tom Fletcher visiting a school in Lebanon for Palestinian refugees in 2012. Image: British Embassy Lebanon/CC BY-NC 2.0 via flickr.com
You have repeatedly said that you are both Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli. That’s a stance which leads to accusations of bothsidesism and downplaying the suffering of Palestinians, or is compared to saying ‘All Lives Matter’ at a Black Lives Matter parade. Considering this level of polarisation, how do we make room for nuance?
“One way we can start is to get away from the sort of statements we make as governments. I’ve written these statements for years, so this is kind of mea culpa. We tend to write statements saying: ‘Israel deserves security, and Israel has a right to self-defence. Palestinians deserves to be free from discrimination, and to be able to improve their livelihoods,’. Actually, Israel and the Palestinians both deserve security. They both deserve dignity. So we start to identify things which are clearly issues of dignity, equality and human rights. The Palestinians have as much right to all those things as Israelis. Rather than saying ‘one side deserves this, the other deserves that’, we recognise that there is a common framework there.
“We also have to be honest that there is a massive imbalance. Israel has disproportionate strength, and uses it in disproportionate ways.”
How do we bring a sense of proportion into this discussion?
“Part of it is about calling out what is disproportionate. ‘Proportionate’ is one of those slightly measly diplomatic words. We say: ‘We call upon all parties to act in a proportionate way,’. Great, we do! But what does that actually mean in practice?
“Do we think it is proportionate to take down the building with international media offices in? I haven’t seen a real explanation for why it was targeted, apart from chatter from the Israeli Defence Force saying it was some kind of Hamas cell. Again, it comes back to the nature of proportionality. What’s the evidence for that? Do we collectively think that justifies taking out a building in that way?
“Do we think it’s proportionate if the home of a Hamas commander is in one neighbourhood, to hit that neighbourhood. I think there’s a legitimate argument to be had, there. For me, I don’t regard those things as proportionate. I think we should call them out as disproportionate. I think doing that gets us beyond the simple ‘Ah, but Israel has a right to self-defence’ or ‘Ah, but the Palestinians have a right to fire those rockets’ into a more nuanced conversation.”
Over the weekend I was speaking to a lot of protesters, many of whom were Palestinian. They told me it was important to ‘change the narrative’ around the crisis. How do we bring the sense of proportion you have already discussed into narratives in the media or governments?
“I think some of the points I’ve made about language are part of that. We should condemn attacks on civilians no matter where they come from, rather than condemning them from one side and saying ‘we’re concerned’ about those from the other side. I think there are subtleties there which show we’re not equally concerned about both sides.
“So much of this comes back to a two-state solution. We have to show that we don’t just care about this situation when there’s a flare-up. When it does calm down, as it will do, we have to show we are going to get that state of Palestine, and to end the discrimination of the checkpoints and the economic chokehold on Gaza. We’ve got to be talking about that as much as these flare-ups, rather than thinking ‘well that’s okay now, we can go back to normal’ because the status quo isn’t fair, because the occupied Palestinian Territories are still occupied.”
How do we bring the Israeli government, Hamas, and the Palestinian National Authority together for negotiations?
“I think a starting point has to be an unequivocal recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and of Palestine’s right to exist. Suggestions that we can go back to a time when you could deny either of those things are really unhelpful.
“I think ultimately, we probably aren’t at a point where there is a quick fix now, even though we know what the deal looks like. Most moderates in Israel and Palestine know what the deal looks like. Most diplomats, including in the White House, know what the deal looks like. We almost got there in the past.
“We’re not going to suddenly have a peace conference, and it will all be okay. That’s a delusion. We’re going to need to do this more incrementally, and that starts with rebuilding trust. We have to show that we can bring back opportunity and dignity to the Palestinians. We need much more in the way of people-to-people contact between Israeli and Palestinian civilians, which gets past their two governments.
“The problem is that, at the moment, the hardliners around Netenyahu and around Hamas are getting stronger. They are unpopular, and were becoming more unpopular. Now, because of this crisis, they’re seeing an opportunity to regain their foothold.”
Does this conflict play into their hands?
“They certainly calculate that it does. They both draw oxygen from each other. It’s a terrible situation to be in, when that is the case. But, we’ve got a hardline Israeli government and a hardline government in Gaza. As long as space for moderates is choked off, it’s going to be really difficult to make any progress.”
When people talk about the conflict between the Israeli government and Hamas, the West Bank – which is not administered by Hamas – is often left out of the conversation. Considering that the majority of the West Bank lies under Israeli control, and Palestinians face restrictions on their movement within the region, what role does the West Bank play in resolving the crisis?
“The core of the solution will be that the Palestinian state would be in the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem. That’s been the British position, the International position, and even the American position for decades. The West Bank has to be key to that. But that means we need to see an end to the expansion of settlements, because at the moment a Palestinian state will not be viable if the continued development of settlements choaks off the space available.”
Protesters fly Palestinian flags in Oxford. Image: Sasha Mills
What impact could this crisis have in the Middle East beyond Israel and Palestine?
“It makes it much harder to make progress on the wider normalisation of relations with Israel. You’ve had countries across the region recognising Israel’s right to exist and building diplomatic ties. That doesn’t mean they won’t and shouldn’t be very critical of Israel when it discriminates against Palestinians, builds settlements, and levels areas of Gaza. But it is positive that there is a wider acceptance [of Israel’s right to exist], and that’s part of the answer. I think it’s important that there’s recognition that you can’t have one without the other: normalisation with Israel needs to be accompanied by normalisation with the Palestinians, too. I worry that the violence on the ground and inside the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the forced evictions have settled back some of the wider efforts to build peace in the region.
“They also strengthen the rhetoric of extremists across the region. They give Iran a sense of cause. Iran loves to claim it defends the Palestinian cause, while it fights to the last Palestinian. Extremist groups will draw oxygen from this, from footage of Israeli soldiers inside a mosque during Ramadan. These are quite counterproductive images.”
There’s another element to this conflict, and indeed many others in the twenty-first century, which is an information war on social media. Considering the power of viral posts to shape opinion and spread a message, has social media turned us all into diplomats?
“I think it has. In the book I wrote, I ended with a chapter called Citizen Diplomats, because we need everyone to start thinking like diplomats. That doesn’t mean we all need to walk around speaking in platitudes about proportionality and ceasefires and so on. But it does mean we need to start thinking critically and have to be more discerning about what we read, what we sign, what we share, and the ways in which our actions and words can be a part of the solution, or part of the problem.
“In Lebanon, whenever a bomb went off I used to say the things we needed to do as individuals was to pause for breath, not to rush to judgement about who was behind it, and then to reach out to someone on the other side. These aren’t complicated things. They should be basic human instincts, and yet we don’t always do them.
“On an issue like this, it’s so sensitive and delicate. Getting the words wrong really matters. What I’m trying to set out is actually what the international humanitarian law is. It’s not my view. It’s actually what the international humanitarian legal approach is. I think the more people can go back to the facts, seek them out, and then call out the more toxic media and images, the better. The media has a really key part to play in this.”
A recent preview of Half Baked left me a little unsure of what to expect. Would COVID guidelines and rushed rehearsal schedules leave the show feeling a little underbaked? Rest assured, the cast and crew all rose to the occasion, delivering what was a hugely enjoyable and entertaining night out.
The show itself is centred around the premise of what happens if a bakery gets a cocaine delivery instead of flour. Nina Jurković delights us with a script that is witty, fast-paced and filled with a delicious number of bun-themed puns. Without spoiling the plot, the play takes an unexpected turn satirizing the ongoings of the contemporary art scene. Indeed, it is the way that Jurković uses bread to explore big questions about the nature of art that is the biggest strength of Half Baked. At one point, the show becomes slightly meta when one of the characters begins to consider what it would be like to write an all-female play that for once is not about the woes of being a domestic housewife pining after a man. The fact that Bourne Bakery is perennially empty and in wait for a customer feels like an intentional allusion to the café in Fleabag, immediately setting the tone for a play in which women are allowed to be themselves, rather than filtered entirely through the perspective of the male gaze. The play reminded me of the Bechdel test, in which at least two women have to talk about something other than a man for a work of fiction to pass. Half Baked passes the Bechdel test with flying colours. It is truly a feminist triumph and is so refreshing to see an all-female cast on an Oxford stage—something of a rarity, especially in the genre of farce.
In terms of performances, there was not a weak link in the cast. Leah Aspden must be commended for her performance as the lead Hazel. She flooded the stage with a real sense of charisma and warmth in every scene that she was in, immediately setting the audience at ease. Poddy Wilson also showed excellent coming timing as Molly, completing the double act that lies at the heart of the piece. Both of the actors, despite only being in first year, showed real maturity in their performances—I am sure we will be seeing much more of them over the coming years when Oxford theatre properly resumes in person. I also particularly enjoyed some of the minor roles. Anna Coles as the ‘dumb-blonde drama school student’ was a main highlight of the night, while Beth Ranasinghe, Maggie Moriarty and a surprise cameo from the Assistant Director Gabe Winsor really proved the mantra that there is ‘no such thing as a small part’, making me cackle with laughter even in the moments they were not saying anything on stage.
The show is not perfect. The blocking was at times slightly stilted (which is understandable given the short rehearsal period they had in the North Wall Arts Centre itself). At times the characters felt a little too much like stereotypes, and the first third could have been significantly reduced in length. But it was such a pleasure to be back in a real live theatre watching people perform in real life rather than behind a computer screen, and there is no better first post-lockdown show to see.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Nina Jurković (writer/director) about the creative development of the show itself.
What inspired you to write Half Baked?
“My friend Maxine and I were putting on a production of Blithe Spirit back in 2018, when the male lead dropped out, and we couldn’t replace him. It was not the best position to be in two months before opening night. We had an all-female cast, and so out of spite, we were determined to do an all-female play, but we couldn’t find anything that wasn’t sad, or didn’t have the word ‘dildo’ in the first scene. We fashioned a number of phone note scribbles into a plot, which became the short play Toast. Maxine edited and advised while I wrote, giving the cast whatever scraps we had just finished for each rehearsal, eventually finishing the script five days before opening night. Three years later, our production company applied for the residency slot at the North Wall, seeking to improve the play, iron out some of the problems, and develop it into a more complete and less frantically written whole. Now, it’s ‘Half Baked’.”
Biggest challenge in the rehearsal process?
“We’ve had to rehearse outside, due to a cheeky little global pandemic, so dodging pigeons, rain and runaway dogs have been our main obstacles. Rehearsing without any tables, chairs or props, while also keeping a metre apart at all times has been a slightly unconventional rehearsal process, but it’s definitely been better than zoom, and you can work wonders with a well-placed puffer jacket. Also, trying to describe where we were in University Parks when most of our company didn’t know what rugby posts were was pretty difficult, too.”
Why should people come and see Half Baked?
“If you’ve been missing student theatre, this is what you’ve been waiting for! The cast and our production team are absolutely fantastic, talented, and hilarious. It’s also not about disasters, death, or any real problems at all, so it’s hopefully a good bit of escapism, and if we’re really lucky, you might even find it a bit funny, maybe, hopefully. Plus, I found it quite exciting to actually go all the way out to Summertown for the first time – got very excited by the big M&S.”
Fave type of cake?
“I’m ~*vegan <3*~, so if I find anything that isn’t dense or oddly chewy, I’m very very happy. My favourite cake is my mum’s dutch apple cake, which she makes with Bramley apples, and has this crunchy cinnamon sugar crust which is really unbeatable.”
Half Baked in three words?
“Is it flour?”
Half-Baked continues tonight and Saturday, 22nd May at 7:30pm (2:00pm matinee on Saturday) at The North Wall, Summertown. Tickets are available at https://www.thenorthwall.com/whats-on/half-baked/.
The UK government has announced funding cuts to arts subjects including music, dance, drama, performing arts, art and design, media studies and archaeology and according to the Office for Student (OfS), who are responsible for distributing government funding to universities.
The government has sent a statutory guidance letter to the OfS directing them to cut funding by 50% to high-cost courses not on the Department for Education’s priority list. Performing and creative arts are not among the official “strategic priorities”, with a cut from £36m to £19m proposed next year.
Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said he would “potentially seek further reductions” to central funding for such courses in future years. The government has requested for the money to be redirected to “subjects that support the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] subjects and/or specific labour market needs”. The Department of Education said that this is what is necessary to “support the skills this country needs to build back better”.
Despite this “catastrophic” cut, the Department for Education said that most university funding comes from tuition fees and other sources, and that the reduction in funding would only affect “a small proportion” of universities’ income.
The Russell Group of research universities has objected to the proposed cuts. Its submission to the OfS argues that the affected courses will now run at a deficit of about £2,700 per student, including the income from tuition fees. The group – including University College London, who are anticipated to lose £5.8m – said the cuts will particularly affect universities in London and their ability to attract disadvantaged students or those from under-represented backgrounds.
Singer and former Pulp frontman, Jarvis Cocker and author Bernardine Evaristo are among those who have criticised the plan to cut government funding for arts. Cocker said the “astounding” move would hit poorer students the hardest and claimed that the cuts would ensure arts subjects were only accessible to wealthier students.
The cultural sector contributed £34.6bn to the overall UK economy in 2019, an increase of 27% since 2010, compared with an 18% rise for the overall economy.
Cocker told The Guardian: “I think it will really just put off people from a certain background, and that’s a pity because it’s about mixing with people with different ideas, and then you get this cross pollination of stuff that makes things happen.”
He added: “It always seems to be that it’s art education that seems to be this expendable thing, as if it’s not important, and it is.”
Chris Walters from the Musicians’ Union said the consultation, which closed at midnight on Thursday May 6, had been “poorly publicised” and was not “transparent”, “legitimate” or “fair”.
He said: “It risks the financial viability of training that is essential for producing the next generation of musicians and arts professionals.”
“The notice for this cut is so short that it will likely cause chaos as courses are withdrawn at the last minute, affecting students who have already been accepted onto courses for autumn enrolment.”
“The cut will affect all students, but particularly those from less privileged backgrounds who may rely on local, less well funded institutions that cannot divert funds from elsewhere.”
Booker Prize-winning writer Evaristo described the plan as an “awful assault on the arts in universities”. Evaristo and others have expressed their support for the Public Campaign for the Arts which launched a campaign urging Mr Williamson to rethink his strategy.
General secretary of the arts union Equity, Paul Fleming, said his organisation also “opposes these cuts in the strongest terms”.
He said: “This is yet another government attack on arts education, following years of deprioritising drama and other creative subjects in our schools.”
“What is most troubling about the proposal to cut 50% of funding… is that it blocks a route into the creative industries for working class and other marginalised groups.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Education told Cherwell: “The proposed reforms to the Strategic Priorities Grant would only affect a small proportion of the income of higher education providers. High-quality provision in a range of subjects is critical for our workforce and our society. That is why we asked the Office for Students to allocate an additional £10m to our world-leading specialist providers, including several top arts institutions. Government’s proposed reforms only affect the additional funding allocated towards some creative subjects and are designed to target taxpayers’ money towards the subjects which support the skills this country needs to build back better, such as those that support the NHS, high-cost STEM subjects.”
“The OfS are currently consulting on proposals and we will take account of responses from universities, students, and others before making any final decisions on our funding method.”
Oxford Professor Peter Edwards has joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group accused of climate change denial. Peter Edwards is a Professor of Inorganic Chemistry and a fellow of St. Catherine’s College, Oxford. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser in 2009, is a group that “while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.”
The GWPF claims to have no official or shared view about the science of global warming, but states that “our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.” The group’s main focus is to “analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications.”
Professor Peter Edwards has researched high-temperature superconductivity, the electronic properties of metal nanoparticles, the metal-insulator transition and hydrogen storage and CO2 utilisation technologies. He is also the Co-Founder of the King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology–Oxford Centre for Petrochemical Research (KOPRC), the UK Sustainable Hydrogen Energy Consortium and was the UK Representative in the Kyoto International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy forum on Future Hydrogen Energy. The professor has also had close collaborations with Sir John Houghton, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) together with Al Gore.
The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign stated to Cherwell regardingProfessor Edwards’ appointment: “It is disappointing to see the solutions needed to tackle climate change being undermined by Oxford academics. Fossil fuel companies have already wreaked destruction, both on a large scale as the main contributors to the climate emergency, and on a more local scale in communities (usually marginalised and racialised) where extractive goals are prioritised over human rights. The transition to renewables will not be easy. But it is possible; and for the sake of people who will lose their livelihoods to climate change, transitioning to renewables as fast as possible is the only ethical option.”
“With Carbon Capture and storage technology still at an early and expensive stage, the only hope is to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels in the coming few years. Moreover, as a climate justice group we regard the severance of ties with the fossil fuel industry as a moral as well as a practical imperative. Indigenous peoples, communities of colour, and nations in the Global South have been irredeemably abused by fossil fuel companies, and to show solidarity with them we must separate ourselves from the perpetrators. Our atmosphere is like an overflowing bathtub, with carbon emissions flowing out of the tap. It is illogical to keep mopping up the water (using Carbon Capture and Storage) instead of turning off the tap (leaving fossil fuels in the ground).”
On the appointment of Professor Edwards, the spokesperson for the group said: “This appointment flags up a contradiction in our University’s ethics. On the one hand, Oxford’s recent efforts towards sustainability have been commendable (including the 2020 Congregation vote for partial divestment from fossil fuels, and the new Sustainability Strategy). On the other hand, as long as Oxford receives money from the fossil fuel industry it raises the question of whether academics like Edwards are incentivised to defend the fossil fuel industry due to the money their departments receive from these companies.”
“We believe that our recent report demonstrates this same contradiction: though the University is making strides in sustainability, it is yet to understand and embed the values of climate justice. As an international institution, Oxford needs to show care for those suffering from the effects of climate change and from the human rights violations of the fossil fuel industry. This can only be done through a complete severance from the fossil fuel industry.”
In response, Professor Edwards said to Cherwell: “The Haber – Bosch process alone is said to feed approximately 40% of the global population. Whatever their faults – and I am acutely aware of them – we simply cannot stop using fossil fuels; at best we will have to transition from them. The International Energy Agency itself now projects that 70-75% of global energy consumption in 2040 will be met by fossil fuels (recall, this was circa 85% in 2020). If we were immediately to stop all fossil fuel use, how many of the earth’s population of nearly 8 billion people would we be likely to support ? One estimate is 2 billion people. The challenge we/your readers have to face is that fossil fuels underpin everything we take for granted – even the crops to feed that gigantic population. Boycotting or divesting from the fossil fuel sector is a complex matter as I tried to point out in the case of our own links with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology.”
“I do not believe that the level and scale integration of renewables – wind and solar generation – onto the grid is feasible from either a technological or a socio-political viewpoint. Wind and solar energy are not ‘dispatchable’ meaning they cannot be summoned onto the network when needed . Intermittent renewable generation cannot be called upon exactly when required…society requires uninterrupted or nearly uninterrupted access to electricity . With the hope that ‘Green Electricity’ will fulfil all of our needs , the load on the grid will surely need to double in scale.
“I raise this as I have no doubt that the consumer will have to pay for such attempts and this will affect disproportionately the poor and most vulnerable in our society. I know from my own extended family- some living in hugely-disadvantaged areas in the North West that this is of grave concern to them. They are not the people who can afford to buy a Tesla and recharge on their own driveways!”
The Professor also noted that he receives no funding or fees from his association with GWPF.
A spokesperson for the GWPF told Cherwell: “To call the GWPF a ‘climate-denying think tank’ is both a deliberate smear and untrue. The GWPF does not have a collective or official position on climate science.”
“Moreover, for most of our publications we invite external reviews from experts who we expect to take a different view to the publication’s author. We offer to publish any substantive comments or criticism alongside our main publications. In this way, we intend to encourage open and active debate on the important areas in which we work, primarily on climate policy.”
“This explicit diversity of opinion and our willingness to raise critical questions is one of the reasons why eminent scientists like Professor Peter Edwards and Professor Peter Dobson have recently joined the GWPF.”
In response to this, the OCJC stated: “OCJC relies on the expert opinion of reputable researchers when labelling companies and organisations. If GWPF have an issue with how we have labelled them they should take that up with those professionally qualified to identify climate denial.”
