DOCSLIB.ORG

Tomorrow's Giants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tomorrow’s Giants 1 July 2010 Hosted at Southbank Centre, London, by the Royal Society and Nature Introduction Tomorrow’s Giants was a one day conference in July 2010, The three themes of the conference were: hosted by the Royal Society and Nature which brought Data together scientists and policymakers to gather a vision The challenge of curating and supporting databases of the next 50 years in science and discuss what would in the future and ethical concerns around the storage be needed to enable academic achievement of the highest and management of certain types of data. quality in the future. The conference was part of See Further: The Festival of Science + Arts which took place at Southbank Careers Centre, London to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Mechanisms for providing security and support for Royal Society. research careers. Over 200 scientists attended the event to discuss their Measuring and assessment future alongside a series of eminent speakers and leading The use of performance indicators and the challenge decision-makers. Professor Robin Williams (Director of of having appropriate checks without inhibiting research. the Research Centre for Social Sciences at the University This report outlines the main issues examined by Tomorrow’s of Edinburgh) Professor Dame Sally C Davies (Director Giants – which were those issues highlighted by researchers General of Research and Development and Chief Scientific who took part in seven regional workshops held by the Adviser for the Department of Health and NHS) and Professor Royal Society during the year leading up to the event. David Sweeney (Director (Research, Innovation and Skills) Nature also hosted an online forum which enabled at the Higher Education Funding Council for England) led discussions to continue after the meetings, and allowed breakout sessions; Professor Sir John Beringer (Former those who could not attend to have a voice. In total, over Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Bristol), Professor Julia 300 early stage career scientists across all disciplines Goodfellow CBE (Vice-Chancellor, University of Kent), took part in the consultation process and conference. Professor Tony Hey (Corporate Vice President of External The organising committee, Nature and the Royal Society Research, Microsoft), Dr Terence Kealey (Vice-Chancellor, programmed the conference according to the consultation University of Buckingham), Professor Adrian F M Smith FRS of the young researchers, as the Royal Society and Nature (Director General, Science and Research, Department for wanted to ensure the conference targeted the subjects Business Innovation and Skills) and David Willetts MP that early career scientists ‘tomorrow’s giants’ were (Minister of State for Universities and Science) took part most concerned about. in a panel discussion; and Professor Dame Wendy Hall FRS (University of Southampton) delivered an inspiring keynote speech. Forum Feedback When given a list of issues to highlight to policy makers, respondents to the Careers Tomorrow’s Giants survey identified the following statement as being the most In a session led by Professor Dame Sally C Davies (Director General of Research and Development important relating to this theme: and Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health and NHS) scientists discussed the question “There are too many competing “What do we need to be successful?” demands on a scientist’s time for example, teaching, policy, The general theme for the discussion that followed was the career path needs to be taken. A non-traditional path could communicating, administration, importance of stability and continuity in a research career. As in fact help a researcher to become equipped with skills they had been the case in discussions around the country leading up would not gain by taking a traditional route and which might grant-writing, supervising etc to the conference, scientists raised the question of whether a give them advantages over other researchers. These negative and these are impacting on greater degree of stability could be offered. Multiple short term views could be discouraging some excellent scientists from scientists ability to actually contracts are not attractive to those who want geographical continuing in research. carry out their research.” or career stability. Many agreed that establishing a scientific In terms of career freedom there were also concerns about career took time and therefore this uncertainty was a threat the impact agenda, especially as some considered this to be to research, recruitment and retention. a driver towards a short term view. Combined with a push Whilst it was commonly accepted that good levels of training towards greater industrial involvement in projects, it was and mentoring were available, there were calls for other support. apparent that scientists felt a general tension between The importance of retaining highly skilled technical staff was investigating current issues and pursuing longer term highlighted. Given that not everyone could be, or even want targets that had the potential to yield genuinely ground to be, a Principal Investigator, could a range of attractive career breaking results. In questioning the relevance of the impact options be developed for the many excellent scientists not agenda it was commented that “good science always has, wishing to advance beyond postdoctoral level, but are none and will continue to have, an impact.” On a similar note in the less vital to their research groups. the concluding panel session, David Willetts MP expressed the view that, “The main issue is not the impact, but the The gender gap issue was raised and several expressed their impact agenda – the system of measuring and describing frustration at there still being a working culture within institutions social impact. I’m actually rather sympathetic to the argument that was unwilling to accept the realities and necessities of that there should be less of that bureaucracy, but people will parenthood. Furthermore, the negative perception of career always need to account for public money.” breaks – whether for raising a family or any other reason – also needs to be addressed. There is no reason why a traditional Continued Online forum comments: “It is a major concern of all doing research that they are facing conflicting demands due to the diverse responsibilities (teaching, Careers (continued) research, administration). The impact of each of these is leading to a sense of On the issue of intellectual freedom, there was debate about In concluding, Professor Davies expressed concern about disillusionment that we are trying to the extent to which funding bodies were facilitating or directing recurring views regarding scientists’ expectations around do too much and the quality of each is research. Many indicated a preference for the facilitator mode, the varied and numerous elements in their career. suffering.” (Dr Philip Williamson, University indicating that this was more likely to encourage and foster of Southampton) Communications, teaching, policy, preparing grant proposals tomorrow’s giants. After the event one of the panel members, and supervising were considered to be time-consuming as “As a university lecturer, the many Professor Sir John Beringer, commented: “We need to examine well as requiring specialist skill sets. Are modern scientists demands on my time and my desire how to adjust funding mechanisms to foster original thinking being taken away from their core skills and prevented from to both teach well and carry out top and, perhaps even more importantly, how to identify young using their most productive abilities? Given current emphasis class research result in considerable scientists who have the potential to become ‘giants’. It will on public relations and communications, is tomorrow’s giant stress and the need to work long also be important for organisations such as the Royal Society a scientist, or a salesman? Acknowledging these concerns, hours. This is one of the factors that to work with the best universities to see how career structures Professor Davies asked whether it was imperative for scientists discourages women from careers in can be developed for outstanding research scientists which to be expert at all of the things mentioned or was it sufficient academia and needs to be addressed are not driven by the present drivers of excellence in teaching, for them to be a specialist in one. by providing more support in terms of administration and research. We are losing our research core posts eg. technical and postdoctoral institutes fast and universities need to adjust to compensate positions and administrative support. if long term and innovative research programmes are to be Many research institutes provide this able to flourish.” and university lecturers are thus at a double disadvantage.” (Professor Christine J Watson, University of Cambridge) Forum Feedback When given a list of issues to highlight to policy makers, respondents to the Data Tomorrow’s Giants survey identified the following statement as being the most Tomorrow’s giants will live in a world of big data. Methods of data access and curation will need to adapt important relating to this theme: and evolve rapidly to keep up with the rate of data production. Scientists were excited about the amounts “Policies supporting a move of data being produced, and led by Professor Robin Williams (Director of the Research Centre for Social towards more free access Sciences at the University of Edinburgh) a group debated the possibilities opened up by a world of big data. to data on the web would be of great benefit to the With a wide variety of disciplines being represented the It was emphasised that as well as being accessible, scientific community.” question of the diversity of data was one of the first to be published data should be understandable. Raw data raised. Noting the wide differences in the kind of information without interpretation could easily be misunderstood being used, stored and shared immediate questions were: or misrepresented resulting in a need for safeguards Online forum comments: What are the most effective kinds of data to be shared? to prevent this.
Recommended publications
  • Mothers in Science

    Mothers in Science

    The aim of this book is to illustrate, graphically, that it is perfectly possible to combine a successful and fulfilling career in research science with motherhood, and that there are no rules about how to do this. On each page you will find a timeline showing on one side, the career path of a research group leader in academic science, and on the other side, important events in her family life. Each contributor has also provided a brief text about their research and about how they have combined their career and family commitments. This project was funded by a Rosalind Franklin Award from the Royal Society 1 Foreword It is well known that women are under-represented in careers in These rules are part of a much wider mythology among scientists of science. In academia, considerable attention has been focused on the both genders at the PhD and post-doctoral stages in their careers. paucity of women at lecturer level, and the even more lamentable The myths bubble up from the combination of two aspects of the state of affairs at more senior levels. The academic career path has academic science environment. First, a quick look at the numbers a long apprenticeship. Typically there is an undergraduate degree, immediately shows that there are far fewer lectureship positions followed by a PhD, then some post-doctoral research contracts and than qualified candidates to fill them. Second, the mentors of early research fellowships, and then finally a more stable lectureship or career researchers are academic scientists who have successfully permanent research leader position, with promotion on up the made the transition to lectureships and beyond.
  • Annual Review 2019 & Vision for 2020

    Annual Review 2019 & Vision for 2020

    Daphne Jackson Trust Annual Review 2019 1 Changing Landscapes Annual Review 2019 & vision for 2020 Daphne Jackson Trust Annual Review 2019 3 Welcome from Teresa Anderson Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust When we chose the working title punch well above its weight, as a small ever faced. Recent world events have of ‘Changing Landscapes’ for this charity, which is really making a big taught us that science and innovation annual review, we didn’t realise difference. The Fellowships offered by offer hope and optimism. Now is the quite how well this title would the Trust are still quite unlike any other time to recognise this and magnify our describe the situation we are currently available in either academia or impact by collaborating across disciplines, all in as this is finalised. The main in industry, and offer the best chance of institutions and countries. The work of purpose of this review, though, is success for a returning researcher. the Daphne Jackson Trust must be part to highlight the tremendous success of this. With everyone’s commitment I of the Trust in 2019, even in the It is undoubtedly a challenging time for am confident we will succeed and prosper. midst of the uncertainties caused researchers and institutions; uncertainty by Brexit, which have now, in 2020, exists across the higher education and been eclipsed by the unprecedented the UK science and research sectors. changes and challenges from the It’s important for all of us to continue COVID-19 pandemic. We will then to collaborate with our networks and Contents colleagues around the world.
  • 20 October 2015

    20 October 2015

    20 October 2015 Agenda The subject of the meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group is Universities and Europe: why EU membership and reform matter. 6.00pm Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group, welcome and introductions. 6.05pm Professor Julia Goodfellow, Vice-Chancellor, University of Kent and President, Universities UK 6.15pm Neil Carmichael MP, Chair, Conservative Europe Group 6.25pm Pawel Swidlicki, Policy Analyst, Open Europe 6.40pm Questions, comments, and discussion with university leaders, MPs and Peers. 7.30pm Speaker meeting concludes. Guests move to Dining Room B for dinner. 1 Speaker biographies Professor Julia Goodfellow Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow has been Vice- Chancellor of the University of Kent since 2007. She was appointed to both the Science and Technology Facilities Council and Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology in 2011. She took up the post of President of Universities UK in August 2015. Julia’s scientific studies pioneered the use of computational methods to study the structures of large biologically important molecules. She became Professor of Biomolecular Sciences in 1995 at Birkbeck, University of London, where she was appointed Vice-Master in 1998. Before joining Kent, Julia was Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Neil Carmichael MP Neil was first elected to Parliament in 2010 and serves as MP for Stroud, re-elected this May with an increased majority. He was elected to Chair of the Education Select Committee in June 2015, having served as a member of the Education Select Committee between 2010 and 2015.
  • TQI 08 79 Annex E.Pdf

    TQI 08 79 Annex E.Pdf

    HEFCW/08/79 Annex E Students more satisfied than ever before 11 September 2008 By Melanie Newman Most are happy with teaching but assessment is still a concern, reports Melanie Newman Overall student satisfaction is higher than ever before, according to the results of the 2008 National Student Survey. For universities in England, students' overall satisfaction rate rose slightly from 81 per cent last year to 82 per cent, while satisfaction scores in six specific areas, including teaching, assessment and academic support, also all increased. Students are most satisfied with the teaching they receive, with 83 per cent reporting general satisfaction. But satisfaction with "assessment and feedback" remained lower than in other areas, at 64 per cent. A total of 149 higher education institutions from across the UK took part in the survey, with almost 210,000 students taking part. Minister for Students Delyth Morgan said: "The continued high level of satisfaction is a welcome testament to the quality of the teaching and learning experience in this country." The National Union of Students welcomed the improved scores, but expressed concern that students taking higher education courses in further education colleges were less satisfied than their counterparts studying in universities. Only 58 per cent of students taking higher education courses in further education colleges agreed that their course was well organised and managed, compared with 71 per cent of those studying in universities. The top UK satisfaction score of 96 per cent went to the University of Buckingham, a private institution. Vice-chancellor Terence Kealey said: "This is the third year that we've come top because we are the only university in Britain that focuses on the student rather than on government or regulatory targets.
  • Staff Changes Emma Bennett Joined the Academy As Exhibits Regularly in the UK and Europe

    Staff Changes Emma Bennett Joined the Academy As Exhibits Regularly in the UK and Europe

    Council Election Nobel Prize Congratulations to the following Fellows who Dr Sydney Brenner were elected to serve as new members of FRS HonFMedSci was awarded The Council with effect from 21 November 2002. Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2002 for his research into genetic regulation of organ development and Professor Carol Black programmed cell death. Though now based in California, President, The Royal College of Physicians and Professor of Sydney Brenner’s discoveries whilst working in Cambridge, Rheumatology, Royal Free and University College Medical School UK, laid the foundation for this year’s prize which was awarded jointly to H Robert Horvitz and John E Sulston. Professor Nancy Rothwell MRC Research Professor, University of Manchester Professor Julia Goodfellow Chief Executive, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Professor Colin Bird Sir Douglas Black Formerly Dean of Medicine and Provost of Faculty Group of Medical and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh Sir Douglas Black: died September 13, 2002. It is with Medical School much sadness that we record the passing of a distinguished Honorary Fellow. The Black report was widely Professor Jonathan Cohen regarded as the most authoritative publication on the link Dean, Brighton & Sussex Medical School between poor health and social deprivation. That it became Professor Thomas Kirkwood so influential was at least in part due to the then Professor of Medicine, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne Government’s efforts to suppress its publication. Council is pleased to announce the appointment of Sir John Skehel, Sir Douglas was a widely respected and much loved FRS FMedSci, as Shadow Vice-President with responsibility for Professor of Medicine at Manchester and later President of non-clinical affairs.
  • Madeleine Atkins, Chief Executive, HEFCE; Professor Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK

    Madeleine Atkins, Chief Executive, HEFCE; Professor Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK

    To: Madeleine Atkins, Chief Executive, HEFCE; Professor Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK We are university educators who are deeply disturbed by the proposed use of ‘student outcomes’ metrics as proxy measures of teaching quality in HEFCE’s proposed new ‘quality assessment’ regime and the mooted ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’. We call upon HEFCE to reject this use, and upon University UK to withdraw its endorsement of, and campaign vociferously against, the use of ‘student outcomes’ metrics for these purposes. The use of ‘student outcomes’ to measure teaching quality is completely inappropriate for the following reasons. 1. Student attainment is never a direct or reliable measure of teaching quality because it is influenced by a host of factors unconnected to the quality of teaching. Decades of research has shown that the largest single determinant of educational outcomes is social class.1 Yet, in secondary education, the OFSTED inspection regime and much political/ public discourse operates as if ‘good teaching’ is the only important driver, and by extension bad outcomes must be the result of ‘bad teaching’. This is simply inaccurate. Similarly, in Higher Education, student attainment within single academic departments frequently fluctuates considerably year-on-year. This does not necessarily signify fluctuations in teaching quality, which experience suggests remains broadly consistent, but rather cohort effects based on the characteristics of a given student body – not least the students’ own efforts. The same is true for many other metrics, such as student employment and salary data, which are heavily influenced by many non-teaching factors, notably interpersonal networks, which in turn often rest on social class themselves.2 Similar concerns have been raised about the use of NSS data.3 Given the strong social determinants of student outcomes, any metrics system based on them may reflect pre-existing social hierarchies rather than providing any objective measure of ‘teaching quality’.
  • This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research

    This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research

    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Wells, Lee Title: A Critical Realist Analysis of the Legitimising Affects of the Entrepreneurial University General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. A Critical Realist Analysis of the Legitimising Affects of the Entrepreneurial University Lee Wells A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for award of the degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law School of Education December 2019 Word Count: 82,000 Abstract Despite the expansive literature on the Entrepreneurial University, very little has been written regarding the impact of university entrepreneurialism on the legitimacy of the university.
  • Inside Pages

    Inside Pages

    The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Annual Report 2010 THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (An Associate Parliamentary Group including Members of the Associate Parliamentary Engineering Group) Established 1939 The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee is a primary focus for scientific and technological issues providing a long-term liaison between Parliamentarians and scientific and engineering bodies, science-based industry, academia and organisations representing those significantly affected by science. The main aim is to focus on those issues where science and politics meet, informing Members of both Houses of Parliament by indicating the relevance of scientific and technological developments to matters of public interest and to the development of policy. The Committee meets once a month when Parliament is sitting to debate a scientific or engineering topic and its relationship with political issues. These debates take place in the Palace of Westminster, starting at 5.30pm and are usually followed by informal receptions. Attendance is typically 60 –80. Most debates are followed by a working dinner where the informal atmosphere facilitates open and wide-ranging discussion between interested Parliamentarians and those most closely concerned with the evening’s topic. The Committee arranges visits to industrial and scientific establishments. Typically a party of a dozen or so will include two or three Parliamentarians who will thereby have an in-depth introduction to some aspect of the real world of science and technology. Cover photograph Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament. Foreword by the President The Rt Hon the Lord Jenkin of Roding The President’s Foreword to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Annual Report is an opportunity to reflect upon current issues and future opportunities.
  • The Fifth Report of Senior Pay and Perks at UK Universities

    The Fifth Report of Senior Pay and Perks at UK Universities

    Transparency at the top? The fifth report of senior pay and perks in UK universities History This is the fifth report on pay and perks at the top of British higher education institutions (HEIs) to be published by the University and College Union (UCU). It forms part of the union’s ongoing campaign for greater transparency in higher education, including the rationale behind senior pay rises. UCU submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to 158 HEIs in November 2018. This followed similar requests submitted in 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014. All requests were designed to shine a light on the arbitrary nature of senior pay and perks in universities, and support the union’s call for reform. The basis for this report The FoI request that forms the basis of this report was sent to 158 HEIs. It requested details of vice-chancellors’ (or head of institution if known by a different title) salaries and those of other senior post-holders earning over £100,000 at the institution during the academic year of 2017/18 (1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018). It also asked for details spending on flights and hotels, and if the vice- chancellor was provided with accommodation by the university. Finally, we requested to know whether or not the vice-chancellor was a member of the remuneration committee, if they could attend even if not a member and requested a copy of the most recently ratified minutes of the institution’s remuneration committee. Variety of responses The questions on salary, expenditure on flights, hotels and accommodation for vice-chancellors elicited a huge variation in responses with many institutions deploying exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act to avoid providing data.
  • Buckingham at 25

    Buckingham at 25

    Buckingham at 25 Buckingham at 25 Freeing the Universities from State Control Edited by JAMES TOOLEY The Institute of Economic Affairs First published in Great Britain in 2001 by The Institute of Economic Affairs 2 Lord North Street Westminster London sw1p 3lb in association with Profile Books Ltd Copyright © The Institute of Economic Affairs 2001 The moral right of the authors has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. isbn 0 255 36512 8 Many IEA publications are translated into languages other than English or are reprinted. Permission to translate or to reprint should be sought from the General Director at the address above. Typeset in Stone by MacGuru [email protected] Printed and bound in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers CONTENTS The authors 9 Foreword by Sir Martin Jacomb 19 Introduction: The future of higher education in the UK: seven straws in the wind 23 James Tooley 1 How necessary are universities? 39 Alan Peacock Introduction 39 The argument presented 41 Questions raised by the argument 44 Some radical conclusions 48 Whither Buckingham? 52 2 Who owns the universities? – the battle for university independence;
  • Annual Report 2009

    Annual Report 2009

    The Daphne Jackson Trust Annual Report 2009 1 | The Daphne Jackson Trust Welcome to the... Chair’s Introduction Daphne Jackson Trust Farewell from... Annual Report 2009 Professor Christopher Snowden... Although the economic downturn has affected all sectors across science, engineering and technology, the Daphne Jackson Trust has consistently worked through the challenges presented during 2009. The need for highly qualified and skilled returners has not diminished and so the Trust Contents continues to increase the number of Fellowships awarded. It has also been a year for change and I am pleased to hand over the reins to a new Chair 3 Chair’s Introduction who I am sure will be dedicated to ensuring the growth and success of the Trust. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust and would like to 4 Chief Executive’s Summary thank the Trustees and staff for their hard work and dedication during 2009. 5 Overview of the Trust: 2009 8 Our Fellows: 2009 13 Trust Summary: 2009 Professor Christopher Snowden FRS FREng FIEE FIEEE FCGI Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust 14 Sponsors and Donors 15 Committees & Administration: 2009 Welcome from... Professor Glynis Breakwell It is with great pleasure that I take over as Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust. Like most charities we faced great challenges in 2009 to retain the existing levels of sponsorship whilst seeking out new sponsors to take the Trust forward. It is my intention to strengthen and expand the Trust to enable it to achieve the standing and status that it so richly deserves, enabling us to help more and more scientists, engineers and technologists.
  • Science Policy Under Thatcher

    Science Policy Under Thatcher

    Science Policy under Thatcher Science Policy under Thatcher Jon Agar First published in 2019 by UCL Press University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT Available to download free: www.uclpress.co.uk Text © Jon Agar, 2019 Jon Agar has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as author of this work. A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library. This book is published under a Creative Commons 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: Agar, J. 2019. Science Policy under Thatcher. London, UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787353411 Further details about Creative Commons licenses are available at http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Any third-party material in this book is published under the book’s Creative Commons license unless indicated otherwise in the credit line to the material. If you would like to re-use any third-party material not covered by the book’s Creative Commons license, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. ISBN: 978-1-78735-343-5 (Hbk) ISBN: 978-1-78735-342-8 (Pbk) ISBN: 978-1-78735-341-1 (PDF) ISBN: 978-1-78735-344-2 (epub) ISBN: 978-1-78735-345-9 (mobi) ISBN: 978-1-78735-346-6 (html) DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787353411 For Kathryn, Hal and Max, and my parents Ann and Nigel Agar.