A Political Twist

Well, quite an eventful couple of days in UK politics. Firstly, the Government narrowly wins a vote to increase the number of days terror suspects can be imprisoned without charge, partly thanks to what some regard as Brown almost bribing DUP members to back him. That a political leader in trouble should go to such lengths to secure a successful vote it perhaps not surprising.

But what happened today was. David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, resigned not just from the shadow cabinet, but as an MP, in order to protest against the result, and to trigger a by-election on the issue. It's a move that is being hailed as 'unprecedented' in UK politics, and seems to be as much a shock for his party and leader as it has been for the government and the media.

Personally, although my voting habits are firmly to the left (which does not necessarily mean Labour these days), I've got to applaud Mr Davis for taking such a stand. His actions, alongside those Labour cabinet ministers who were willing to resign their posts over the Hybrid Embryo vote, demonstrate that successful politicians don't necessarily lack integrity. He has an awful lot to lose - even if he wins back his seat there will be no guarantee that he'll be warmly welcomed back - there is some suggestion that this is likely to seriously displease David Cameron for bringing into turmoil what has been a recent increase in the popularity of his party. But sometimes you've just got to take that kind of risk if you really care about something.

It'll be the first time in my life I'll be willing a Tory candidate to win an election!

Blood on our labcoats

It always sucks when you discover an organisation you're associated with is not quite what it seems. Particularly if the hidden side isn't one of which you approve.

I strongly feel that universities should be apolitical institutions with respect to their governance. Not that students and academics within them shouldn't argue for or against various political concepts and ideals - rather that the institutions themselves are free from the sway and trends of politics, as might be imposed on their operation.

Working from within that framework, I find it both disappointing and disturbing to discover just how many UK universities have shares in arms companies. What place does arms dealing have in what is supposed to be a climate of academic thought, learning and research? It's somewhat disconcerting to realise that the tuition I sought to try to make a positive contribution to society was indirectly supported by an industry whose products maim and kill. 'Disconcerting' is probably not the word to describe the sensation experienced by those on the receiving end of such 'products'.

It gets worse (and more bizarre). Reed Elsevier, a major force in scientific journal publishing, also run arms fairs such as DSEI, which attracted protest today. I cannot begin to fathom what kind of board meeting resulted in that decision:

"Right, ladies and gentlemen, we need to do something to increase our revenue. Any ideas?"
"How about we become pioneers in Open Access publishing, thus benefiting the academic community and perhaps society as a whole?"
"No, not profitable enough. Any other thoughts?
"Well, we could run arms fairs and invite military from around the world to come shopping?"
"Excellent idea!"

As it happens, Reed Elsevier have decided to sell off this enterprise at the end of the year due to criticism from a number of sources. I'm glad of this, as boycotting KitKats because Nestle are evil bastards is one thing, but trying to avoid Reed Elsevier's publications whilst simultaneously trying to make a reasonable stab at this 'cancer research thing' is rather more problematic. It's a strange old world where civilian war casualties are somehow linked to cancer patients in peaceful nation states, but such is the complex web that underpins commercial enterprise. Whatever my purist ideals about working in academia and not industry, I'm becoming increasingly aware of my need to get to grips with commerce and economics if I want to try to live an ethical life.

Semantic Double Standards

Why is it that, if an Indian woman opts to abort a female foetus because of the social stigma and financial difficulties of not having male children, it is referred to as 'foeticide', but if a Western woman chooses to abort a foetus of either sex because she wants to get on with her career, or dissociate herself from the consequences of a casual sexual relationship, it is called a termination?

Both are decisions influenced by desire to conform to certain social constructs, both are decisions that may well be influenced by financial considerations. But one of them attracts greater linguistic condemnation than the other does. Why?