Monthly Archives: December 2015

Being at the spearhead of the fintech revolution

Tico Altahona is a One Planet MBA student who has been doing an internship with Droplet.

‘Too big to fail’, is how the importance of banks has traditionally been defined, as they are so large and interconnected that if they collapse, there would be a chain reaction that would affect the whole economy. They are the link that connects the economy and lets everything happen: from government policy (expand the circulation with credits) to buy groceries (payment services).

We are living in exciting moments because a revolution is happening right now. There are serious threats to the banks foundations, and I am happy to announce that I am part of it. The Financial Technology (Fintech) revolution has been made by start-ups that use Internet and mobile applications to side step banks. Companies like Droplet are now able to replace the traditional services offered ONLY by banks, in this particular case: payments with cards.

droplet1I am undertaking my internship with Droplet, and being in the middle of this revolution is an exciting world for an entrepreneur like me, because it’s a place where there is no navigation chart, only a blank page that we are writing on. At the same time is very risky; we have to succeed because there are no second chances. I love it.

We work with a philosophy: banks can no longer be in the dominant position that fills the pockets of the top management with £150,000 per year while the rest of the economy struggles. Our customers share the same philosophy; because we have a strong social core, customers are incrementing their profits as the service is for free. (We feel like the modern Robin Hood –but within the law!). Want to know how we make revenues? !

I am extremely thankful to the University of Exeter because they made it happen. They offered two subsidies for my internship – please take into account I am Colombian, with no British link at all – making me very attractive to Droplet. The company also recognised the relevance of the university because they had just ended a successful round of crowdfunding with Crowdcube that is located in the university innovation centre.

Making the most of my MBA is more than just coming to class; it is also learning in a work environment that is leading a revolution. Taking an internship is an integral part of this experience and the One Planet MBA has offered their unconditional support for making this whole experience come true.

This post first appeared on the One Planet MBA blog.

Healthy Beards? A ‘Decembeard’ Special!

As the end of Decembeard approaches we decide to share this blog post from Dr Alun Withey, Associate research Fellow in History, which was first published on December 1, 2015 on his blog.

Today marks the start of ‘Decembeard‘, in which tens of thousands of men across the UK and beyond will be donning the facial hair to raise money for research into bowel cancer. It’s often forgotten how closely facial hair has been linked to men’s health. In fact, the health and hygiene history of beards is the subject of my current research. To celebrate ‘Decembeard’, therefore, I thought it might be interesting to explore some of the recent (and not so recent) health aspects of the beard.

ezra-meeker

Ezra Meeker Image from Wikipedia Commons

I was struck by a recent report of a new study relating to the health and hygiene of beards. In fact, the health and hygiene history of beards is to be a central theme of my research into facial hair over the next few years. How, healthy – or otherwise – are beards? It’s a question I’ve been asked a lot by the media recently. Earlier in the year came the brief furore caused by reports that beards might be dirtier than toilet seats. Apparently, beard hair traps all manner of germs and microbes, which easily find access into the mouth.

But Australian scientists have concluded that beards have many health benefits, including reducing the impact of ultra violet rays by almost a third. Beards apparently have a SPF factor of 21! Other claims were made by the study, including the trapping of pollen and dust (good news for asthma sufferers), maintenance of moisture on the skin underneath the beard, and also a barrier against the elements.

Both camps are firmly dug in. On one side sit those who see beards as dirty and unsanitary; on the other, those who promote the health benefits of beards. These scientific studies might be viewed as the result of modern research techniques allowing us new insights into the workings of the body. But, I would suggest that they are merely a continuance of longstanding arguments about facial hair that have continued on almost identical lines for centuries.

The supposed health benefits of beards have a long history. In the 1850s, the massive popularity of beards was sparked in part by men’s desire to emulate military moustaches, and other bearded heroes, such as explorers. Promoting health benefits was another means of convincing doubtful men of the natural protection afforded by their whiskers.

In March 1859, the Crayon periodical emphasised the protective nature of beards. Wherever there was an important organ, it was argued, nature gave it extra protection. The ‘hard pan’ of the skull, after all, protected the brain. The beard was therefore nature’s protection against extreme heat or cold, and protected the nose and throat, and even the teeth, against disease. ‘Clergymen who are close shavers are much more frequently troubled with disease of the throat, than lawyers, who for the most part wear the beard’.

Arguments for healthy beards went back further than that. In the 1530s, Pierius Valerianus argued that a beard drew off superfluous humours, preserving the teeth from rotting and, interestingly, ‘defends the face from the burning rays of the sun’ [my emphasis]. And this nearly five centuries before the current study!

paris_bordone_-_c3a9tude_dhomme_nu
Another central health claim in Victorian texts was that the beard acted as a filter against germs and smuts. In 1881, Tom Robinson M.D. extolled the virtues of moustaches in ‘preserving the soldiers from catarrhal complaints’. Beardless recruits were apparently far more frequent visitors to the barracks infirmary with bronchial infections, than their hirsute companions.

A report into the health of workers on the Great Northern Railway also noted that only 16 enginemen and firemen on the line shaved, with 77 having a moustache and a further 42 with beard and moustache. The ‘utility of the beard as a hygienic agent’ was seemingly reinforced as ‘the latter enjoyed better health than those who shaved’.

800px-sturrock_0-4-2_suburban_tank_engine_great_northern_railway_246Henry Morley and William Wills, author of the pro-beards article ‘Why Shave?” asserted that beards and moustaches protected the opening of the mouth and filtered the air for people working in smoky or dusty environments. More than this they ‘acted as a respirator and prevent[ed] the inhalation into the lungs of air that is too frosty’. Several eminent physicians were quoted in the article as recommending beards as a preventative against consumption, as well as against the harsh conditions and poor air quality of urban environments.

Indeed, for some, shaving the beard off positively invited illness. According to the Scottish physician Mercer Adams in his ‘Plea for Beards’, (Edinburgh Medical Journal, Dec 1861) an 1853 experiment tested 53 healthy, bearded men who were compelled to shave. According to Adams, ‘all of them at first experienced very unpleasant sensations of cold’, 27 had ‘painful afflictions of the teeth and jaws’, 11 had facial neuralgia, and 16 rheumatism of the gums. For Adams, the medical benefits of beards were proven.

There was some debate, however, about whether physicians should wear beards. A correspondent to the British Medical Journal in 1896 noted the fashion for beards amongst doctors, ‘to stroke and look wise whilst making a doubtful diagnosis’. But, they cautioned, the ‘bacteriology of the beard…has not yet been exhaustively studied’. Was it possible that diseases carried in the beards of physicians could transfer themselves to patients? Should ‘doctors sacrifice their beards on the altar of hygiene’? The answer, they suggested, was the ‘careful sterilisation of the beard’.

our_home_physician-_a_new_and_popular_guide_to_the_art_of_preserving_health_and_treating_disease_with_plain_advice_for_all_the_medical_and_surgical_emergencies_of_the_family_1869_147

Others were less circumspect. In a1907 Tatler article titled ‘How to Tell Character by Beards’, Frank Richardson made it clear that he was no fan. ‘Beards are absolutely unhygienic. They are microbe traps. They are not permitted in such clean places as convict prisons and barracks. Therefore they should not be allowed on the streets of Modern Babylon’. Even shaving brushes have caused scares. Between 1915 and 1917 contaminated brushes made from animal hair caused 56 cases of anthrax, with 21 deaths!

And so the seeming fascination with beard health rumbles on. It is interesting how arguments about clean facial hair are separated from that of hair on the head. Does it make sense to argue, for example, that beard hair should trap germs any more than head hair? More, and probably contradictory, studies will undoubtedly follow, but it is clear that questions about the cleanliness of beards are nothing new.

All images from Wikimedia Commons.

Men, mental health and suicide in the UK: The importance of the long view

Dr Ali Haggett is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Medical History, University of Exeter. She works primarily on the history of gender and mental illness and has just published a Wellcome Trust-funded Open Access monograph on male mental illness entitled A History of Male Psychological Disorders in Britain, 1945-1980. This post was origionally published on the History and Policy website.

Although women are likely to be diagnosed twice as often as men for the most common psychological disorders, the most recent suicide statistics for the UK, issued by the Office for National Statistics, show that the male suicide rate is now more than three times higher than the female rate.

Overall, the most recent data on record shows that 4,858 men ended their own lives in 2013, and men aged between 45 and 59 are currently most at risk. Over recent months, expedited by pressure from a number of charities concerned about male suicide, these sobering statistics have begun to attract wider publicity in the press and on television documentaries. BBC 3, for example, recently featured a programme in which rap artist Professor Green explored the harrowing circumstances surrounding his Father’s suicide.

The gender gap in suicide statistics, while shocking, is not new. Data from the beginning of the twentieth century indicates that, notwithstanding a moderate rise in female suicide during the 1960s, the male rate of suicide has always been significantly higher than the rate for women. The scandal is why it has taken so long for the topic to attract the attention it deserves. Studies into suicide during the 1950s and 1960s focused on comparative data between different regions of the UK and examined the influence of other variables such as class and age. While these factors were not unimportant, the fact that men featured in statistics so predominantly has always been ‘the elephant in the room’.

There are complex medical, social and cultural reasons why men might be more likely to end their own lives. These too have a long history – but one that could help us disentangle some of the current problems. The subject of seeking help for psychological disorders certainly seems to be one area that presents particular challenges to the current Western model of masculinity. In part bestowed upon us during the Victorian era (a period in which British ascendency in the world required the projection of ‘power’ and ‘control’) the notion that ‘real’ men should be stoic and independent resulted in boys and men being encouraged to minimise the expression of pain and emotion.

By contrast, during the preceding period, the Georgians viewed nervous disorders as a sign of ‘good breeding’. Advances in scientific and anatomical knowledge from the practice of dissection suggested that the central nervous system was fundamental to understandings of the body. A new interest in nervous disorders, which were thought to affect men and women alike, lead to a belief that the individuals thought to be most seriously affected by ‘nervous distempers’ were those from the cultured, well-to-do classes, who were considered to have a more refined nervous system, which was more prone to collapse. As a result, men were more comfortable being reflective about their own physical and psychological experiences.

It might be helpful to remind ourselves that masculinity has been ‘fluid’ through time – we could look to earlier periods and alternative constructions of masculinity to foster healthier ways of expressing emotional distress.

During more recent times, a number of additional factors might help explain why much male distress remained undetected. From the 1950s, the biomedical model of health and disease predominantly practised in the West, has tended to underplay the role of social and cultural factors in mental health, making it unlikely that the role of masculinity has been considered satisfactorily. When men do seek medical help, they often present with physical or psychosomatic symptoms that may have an underlying emotional cause. It is therefore likely that male cases of depression and anxiety have been under-diagnosed.

In the workplace, debates about sickness absence have historically been dominated by concerns about productivity, resulting in a failure to investigate male psychological illness at work. This has been the case since at least the 1950s when debates about occupational health became fixed upon a number of key threats to health: unemployment, absenteeism, physical and chemical hazards.

By the 1980s, commentators began to caution that mental health had been of subsidiary interest. Dame Carol Black’s report, on the health of the working population, published in 2008, revealed that the importance of the physical and mental health was still ‘insufficiently recognised by society’. As the charity Men’s Health Forum pointed out, this had potentially serious consequences for men who spend more of their lives in the workplace and are less likely than women to make use of statutory health services.

Finally, it is likely that the stigma of mental illness has affected men more acutely than women. The long-held association between women, psychological disorder and ‘weakness’ has been particularly problematic for men who are often reluctant to admit to vulnerability and not ‘coping’. Recent research continues to enforce the association between depression and women. However studies on gender and depression too often draw upon data from surveys that rely on self-reporting. Since men are less likely to recognise or report symptoms of emotional distress, it is not surprising that women feature more regularly in the data.

The constituent countries of the UK have each produced suicide prevention strategies to identify risk and take action across-sector organisations. Young and middle-aged men are now considered to be high-risk groups. There is also now a growing body of excellent academic work on male mental health and the on the commissioning, design and delivery of interventions.

However, there is an important role for history in these developments. By exploring the social and the cultural, as well as the medical and the psychological, and by viewing ideas about male behaviour within the context of their time, history illustrates how symptoms have been viewed differently in response to prevailing cultural and medical forces. It offers us the opportunity to expose and uncover male ‘distress’ where it seemed previously hidden, but was perhaps prevalent, either presenting in complex ways or undiagnosed in the community.

The longer view most certainly suggests that for too long we have been constrained by a biological paradigm and the unhelpful notion that one sex might be biologically more vulnerable to mental illness than the other. A more productive approach would be to explore what it is about being a man or a woman in our culture that make us react differently to psychological stress. For future generations, interventions that promote healthier ways of expressing emotion in young boys will be key.

* Author’s note: It should be acknowledged that not all suicide is caused by mental illness. However, it is known that people with mental health problems are at greater risk of suicide.

Fabulous facial hair history

At the end of last month Alun Withey, Associate research Fellow at the University of Exeter and, Jennifer Evans from the University of Hertfordshire hosted Framing the Face: New Perspectives of the History of Facial Hair, a one day conference funded by the two institutions.

Jennifer tells us more about the conference….

Alun has just begun a three year Wellcome Trust funded project on facial hair and I have been working on a history of men’s sexual health in the seventeenth century that has (surprisingly) led to lots of facial hair related material. We thus wanted to bring together scholars working across temporal and geographic boundaries to see what conversations would emerge.
The day started with a fantastic interdisciplinary panel exploring the role of moustaches on canvas, stage, and screen.

Art historian Victoria Alonso Cabezas examined the representation of young male painters in nineteenth-century Spanish art. We saw that several paintings included shadows of potential facial hair indicating the artist’s entrance in adult manhood. Victoria also showed how some Spanish artists introduced facial hair into their self-representations following involvement in the military or more usually following marriage.

Het Philips then considered the role of moustaches as a marker of ‘creepy’ objectionable masculinity in television and film. Moustachioed characters in Trainspotting and Orange is the New Black, for example, display excessively violent, and often sexually violent, forms of masculinity that Het suggested masks the moral failing of more ‘normal’ male characters. The enjoyment of these masculinities in popular culture is, she argues, rather disconcerting. But having this immediately visually obvious character creates a trope to be subverted, where ‘normal’ men are revealed to be even more morally dubious than the moustache wearing villains.

The panel was completed by makeup artist Helen Casey who explored three case studies where moustaches have been central to the creation of a male character: Charlie Chaplin’s tramp clown, Groucho Marx’s stage persona and David Suchet’s Hercule Poirot. Chaplin made a conscious choice to reject the traditional painted on stubble of tramp clowns played into his desire to have everything about the persona be a contradiction –the tramp clown who is actually a gentleman down on his luck. Poirot’s moustache, meanwhile, portrays everything about the character in one clear visual signifier; he is a man that is precise, clean, fussy and isolated.

The speakers in the second panel looked at facial hair more broadly and crossed gender lines.
Emily Cock questioned the ways in which early modern literature utilised the beard as a key characteristic of a bawd. These one-time prostitutes turned madams were inversions of all that was sexually attractive. They were not though described as having full beards but were endowed with prickly hairs upon their chins. This facial hair excluded them from the realms of the feminine but did not bestow masculinity.

Ellie Rycroft also took us into the world of early modern England examining the lifecycle of boy players and the roles they played on the stage. Beards, as she pointed out, did not suddenly appear but grew over time. Young male actors slipped through social categories and may have had to employ false beards to play adult men. However, as Rycroft noted, in the seventeenth century concern about false beards perhaps meant companies of players moved towards using actors with their real facial hair at its different stages of development. While young and beardless these boys played roles like the page, a bawdy role, which unnerved society by connecting youth to criminality. The growth of facial hair moved youths into the role of gallant or soldier. The extravagance and impermanence of Gallants, who shaved their beards, represented a real threat to society, whilst soldiers, whose martial masculinity was repeatedly asserted through excessive beard growth, suggested the wildness and disorder of unbridled masculine activity.

The final paper in the paper was delivered by Hanna Weibye who described the complex representational qualities of Friedrich Ludwig Jahn’s beard. The nineteenth-century creator of a gymnastic movement in Germany, she argued, perhaps used his beard to signify his sense of difference to the ruling class of German bourgeoisie. While they were clean shaven or wore neat short beards, Jahn’s rather long beard associated him with artisans and a nostalgic Germanic past. His beard was a memorial to his patriotic youth movement that the government refused to support. It was sign of his constancy, loyalty to the state and the fact that he was alienated from his own time.

From the representational qualities of beards the conference moved on to think about choice and consumerism.

John Gagné revealed the intriguing example of Italian beards around 1500. After charting the rise and fall of facial hair in the Roman epochs, he explored the beard wearing of Francesco Gonzaga, who was unusual amongst European princes for wearing a beard. This coincided with Gonzaga’s fight against the French, and under French rule Milanese men were ordered to shave off their beards within three days. Their choice was thus nominally removed from them by a French government who feared that beards were connected to wickedness and sin and that false beards allowed for the disguise of men who had committed crime. Enforced shaving was an indignity to the Milanese who sought diplomatic redress and wore their beards as a sign of mourning for their city, and their defiance of their French overlords.

Moving into the nineteenth-century Justin Bengry delved into the world of shaving adverts and showed how shaving companies sought to instill anxieties about disease and the vulnerability of the masculine body into their potential customers. Concerns that could of course be eased and abated by the use of the ‘right’ shaving products. Adverts both showed the man at home as model of domestic patriarchal bliss, and showed men in the rugged outdoors, escaping the confines of domesticity. Bengry argued that adverts invoked domestic, imperial, modern and traditional tropes to tie their products to extant and new identities. They created tensions in masculinity – showing men that it was fragile, defensive and at risk – in order to encourage men’s consumer choices.

Christopher Oldston-Moore concluded the speakers’ sessions by taking a longue durée approach to understanding choices and trends in facial hair fashion. He suggested that there have been four relatively brief periods of ‘bearded’ history in a western tradition dominated by clean shaven faces. These beard wearing eras were provoked, he argued, by shifts in the foundation of masculine authority towards the ‘naturalness’ of the male body.
The day concluded with a plenary paper by Margaret Pelling that took us on a tour through early modern portraiture and the self-presentation of hair and facial hair. Margaret pointed out that the body and clothing have tended to be considered by historians separately from hair and facial hair. Heads, she noted, have received a lot of scholarly attention because they force themselves on our notice. Yet sexuality and sex, which have often been considered, might not be the best ways to think about the history of the beard: Shylock’s beard, for example, was central to his identity but this was not simply about his masculinity. Hair after all was visible and alterable and could be shaped to show ritual, religious and social status. Beards and hair were not covered by sumptuary laws that, although not rigidly enforced, suggested that appropriate ways to manifest these outward signs of status through clothing. This is intriguing given that the head and hands were the most exposed and vulnerable parts of the body. Facial hair could be used as a screen to hide the face, but is easily distorted by emotive movements meaning that in many contexts it exaggerates rather than hides the face and emotions. Another way to read the wearing of facial hair in this era, Margaret offered, is to think about the static nature of the court which might have given rise to boredom and the growing of facial hair to provide a diversion. Alternatively, older men in particular were prone to wear facial hair, which might have acted as a compensation for male pattern baldness.

Margaret’s paper summarised a key theme of the day which is that there are many ways to think about and understand beards and facial hair in the past. And importantly points out that there is much ground still to be covered.

This blog post was originally published on Jennifer Evans’ blog.

Intrepreting the Nurse review

Professor Nick Talbot FRS is Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research and Impact at the University of Exeter. Here he gives his interpretation of the Nurse review…

JimW-Nick Talbot 18

Professor Nick Talbot

The much-anticipated Nurse Review ‘Ensuring a successful UK research endeavour’ was published on the 19th November. Authored by the current president of the Royal Society and Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse, the review is typically thoughtful and perceptive.

Indeed, the thing that really stands out in the Nurse Review, is that it is very clear throughout that it is authored by someone who has thought long and hard about the research endeavour, the nature of scientific investigation, the differences between discovery science and applied research, and how to organise research so that it delivers for the public good. These are difficult and complex issues and the opening sections should be required reading for anyone associated with the administration of research, including of course politicians, who do not always understand the motivations of scientists, or the nature of scientific enquiry.

The review starts from the premise that the very best research system thrives on excellent scientists, who are motivated by their own curiosity and have the freedom to pursue their intellectual interests. This is, of course, enshrined by the Haldane Principle of 1918, which states that decisions about how to spend research funds should be made by researchers rather than politicians. The Haldane Report led to the establishment of the Research Councils, starting with the Medical Research Council, and has clearly served the UK very well. We have, by most objective criteria, one of the most successful research communities in the world– a very high proportion of the most cited research discoveries are from the UK, compared to our population. Changing the structure of a highly successful research system should therefore only by embarked upon with considerable care and thought.

So what does the Nurse Review conclude? Well, the main recommendation, which has been picked up in most commentaries, is the establishment of an overarching non-departmental government body called Research UK (RUK), which should be headed by a highly distinguished scientist to act as a single Accounting Officer for all seven Research Councils (RCs). They would be supported by the current Chief Executives of the RCs, as an executive committee, but would be the single accountable voice for research, reporting to the Secretary of State. RUK would be responsible for determining spending allocations between the RCs and would also ensure more coherent cross-council strategy– of increasing importance in this era of interdisciplinary research.

However, Nurse is also a political realist. He has, after all been a University President and currently heads the Crick Institute. He knows that the interaction between scientists and government is critical and that ministers, as the elected representatives of taxpayers, must play a role in determining science policy. To provide for this role, he suggests formation of a government committee chaired by a senior minister with cross-cutting cabinet responsibilities that would act as a forum for discussions between policy makers and the research establishment. This has been picked up by some as being a threat to Haldane, but strikes me as a potentially clever move. After all, isn’t it better for there to be a forum in which policymakers and scientists can discuss spending allocations and large science capital decisions in full view of the evidence? At present, it is clear that political considerations, however understandable (why wouldn’t we want to build the northern powerhouse, or put another huge research institute in London?), can lead to decisions about science spend that can appear, at best, opaque. Creating a forum in which legitimate political and economic factors can be balanced with the need for scientific excellence, seems both logical and sensible. On top of that, it might develop a common view about the research priorities of government departments, which are often contradictory and underresourced.

Nurse goes further in recommending that ‘Place-based Innovation’, a concept at the heart of the current government’s industrial policy, becomes a responsibility of the RCs, who would be charged with undertaking a mapping exercise of the UK’s research strength, building upon the Science and Innovation audits, recently announced by BIS. This would ensure that the best research can be supported wherever it is found, but with due recognition of key regional strengths, such as Graphene in the North-West, Aerospace in the South-West, and Satellites in Surrey (although I should stress that these are my examples and not Nurse’s!).

Nurse also suggests that in a post-HEFCE world (as suggested in the recent Green Paper), the Research Excellence Framework and its distribution of Quality Research (QR) funding should also sit within RUK. Thus, both strands of the dual support system for universities would be controlled by a single government body. As dual support already sits in the same government department, this is probably not as revolutionary as it sounds, but one of the real powers of dual support has been the delegated freedom of universities to spend QR exactly as they please (not exactly loved as a concept by ministers). RUK would, therefore, need to assure the HE sector of this core principle and their ability to keep political pressure away, preventing the diversion of QR to strategically directed, project-related spend. This will not be an easy task and, arguably, harder than when QR was distributed by a body whose primary responsibility was for the quality of higher education.

So, will the Nurse Review save the RCs from being part of the government’s promised bonfire of the quangos? The single accounting officer model of RUK creates more efficiencies, as the back-office functions are already merged. It would also allow RC chief executives more time to be strategic and not ‘managing-up’, which I suspect they spend an awful lot of their time doing now, keeping inquisitive ministers and their civil servants at bay. Perhaps Nurse has prevented a merger of the RCs, even if the McKinsey report recommends it. He has provided a framework that could, in my view, work very well.

The question of course is whether the review will be acted upon and whether the forthcoming spending review outcome will simply drown out any serious debate, as the realities of austerity descend upon the university and wider research sector. The government, and perhaps the Treasury even more than BIS, understands that the knowledge economy they seek can only happen with a well-funded and organised research base working closely with business and government, with world-class discovery, innovation and economic growth in mind. So for now, we still live in hope and I share Sir Paul’s cautious optimism.

First published on HEi-know, the HE intelligence service