Life Sciences cuts: Letters

Dear Rector,

We, the students of Imperial College London, are alarmed and strongly against the Life Science Restructure. We feel that the planned restructure will cause significant disruption to student life within Life Sciences. If it goes ahead, Imperial will damage its reputation for excellence in teaching and research. This move, and the manner in which it has been handled are not in the students’ best interest.

As students, we feel we have the right to define our university. The top-down approach of the restructure has ignored the will of the student body. The restructure limits Imperial’s capacity to produce world-class scientists in a number of key disciplines including Plant Science and Applied Cell Biology. It suggests that students do not value these disciplines, when in fact they consistently attract students at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Globally, scientists who are trained in subjects like Food Security and Biofuels are highly valued. Research in these areas has been severely affected, causing us to question whether Imperial can provide students with diverse training.

With the loss of 17 significant lecturers, the important question is whether the current plans can provide high quality teaching and practical experience given the loss of expertise. Will the teaching excellence provided by these lecturers be compensated for? The department will undergo a Teaching Review shortly but clearly, teaching was not taken into consideration when this restructure was put in place. A meeting earlier on in the week with Professor Ian Owens, confirmed that the basis for the restructure was to relieve Biology and Biochemistry of the current financial situation and to modernise the degrees by making them more research-based.

Moreover, we fear that the restructure will affect postgraduates and undergraduates alike with severe disruption to modules and research supervision. The current responses to the issue are inadequate and we request a meeting with you, the Rector, to discuss the following: the disruption to undergraduate modules and to pastoral support; the disruption to students with regards to supervision, marking and technical advice; the disruption to PhD students including but not limited to the removal of supervisors, co-supervisors and advisors; and to immediately address the issue of funding for affected students.

If these matters cannot be resolved, then the student body should make its displeasure known to the public through the National Student Survey and other bodies.

This letter has 376 signatures at the time of writing.

Dear Sirs,

I have been shocked and upset at the details that have emerged this week of the Life Sciences ‘restructuring’. Particularly, the loss of Senior tutors, which will greatly affect the pastoral support available for students.

Unfortunately, during my time as an undergraduate at Imperial I did not find life easy. Several close members of my family passed away, including my parents. I lacked that familial support and grounding which can be all-important for a young person. For a long time, I gave up all hope of getting a degree and even considering working in Science.

However, this year I have graduated with Ecology and Environmental Science BSc, I am currently doing MRes Entomology at the Silwood Park campus and am looking ahead to a career in research.

I can honestly say that without the Life Sciences department - their patience and encouragement, particularly from Dr Simon Archer - I would not be where I am now.

I know of many other present students and Life Sciences graduates who have also benefitted from support in the department.

Francisca Sconce, MRes student, Silwood Park campus

Dear Sirs,

I came to university to get an education, not fund research! Yet Imperial thinks it acceptable to callously dismiss some of the best teaching staff in the department. I think the fact that among others, the admissions tutor is going, tells you all you need to know about Imperial’s attitude towards undergraduate studies.

These cuts will massively impact on our learning in biochemistry: many of those let go were course convenors for final year modules which will now be cut from the course, and all of the names on the list were among the best lecturers in the first year.

Imperial is really shooting itself in the foot by doing this for two main reasons: those of us (biochemistry undergraduates) who were thinking of a career in research will surely think twice having seen how an allegedly world class institution treats its employees. Also, many PhD and MSc students say they wouldn’t have been inspired to do research if it hadn’t been for the stellar teaching of these members of staff.

Imperial is making a grave error in sacking many of the staff in biochemistry who give a damn about teaching.

Guy Needham (2nd year biochemistry student)

Dear Sirs,

I must address some of the points raised by Mr Davies [in last weekís article entitled ìFlee! Flee the St John Ambulance Service!î] I stress that these are my personal views.

Mr Daviesí implicit suggestion that [St John Ambulanceís volunteers] are eager to defibrillate someone at the first opportunity to ìtry [the equipment] outî is tantamount to comparing the organisationís members to mad scientists wanting to test equipment on wounded guinea pigs- a suggestion that leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth and is needless to say untrue.

Moreover, the suggestion that avoiding St John Ambulance avoids ìthe grim spectre of deathî could well be interpreted as libellous. If Mr Davies has any actual examples of clinical malpractice I suggest he refers them through the appropriate channels rather than making unsubstantiated claims in the press. His assertion that St John Ambulanceís presence is a deterrent to injury on the basis of incompetence is entirely refutable and indeed offensive.

St John Ambulance is not, and never has been, a substitute for a local GP, A+E, nor the London Ambulance Service ñ they exist as an emergency first aid service to save lives and reduce injury, something it is extremely effective at doing. I would perhaps direct Mr Davies to look at some recent studies outlining the benefit of immediate first aid treatment in a scenario such as Cardiac Arrest, the definitive medical emergency, and perhaps he would see that people do come out of the Ambulances (at the hospital, for his reference) and subsequently from the hospital; a life saved that would otherwise have been lost.

I could go on with much more of the work SJA does in the community and beyond, but for fear of barracking the point I will not print them here. I do have to thank Mr Davies for getting the syntax of the organisationís name correct, which is a common fault in the press ñ perhaps if he had put as much research into the work of St John Ambulance as he has on the correct spelling of the name then his comment piece would have been much less painful to read.

Faithfully yours,

Jaimie Henry

Chair, Imperial LINKS