Jan 20 2012

More on blogging…

Thanks to Athene Donald* at Occam’s Typewriter for nominating me for a Versatile Blogger Award:

versatile-blogger

I like to think I am a versatile blogger: I post on books, science, politics, photography, gadgets, and science policy. This is one of those slightly pyramid schemes, in which I’m willing to partake since I fancied listing a few of my favourite blogs. The rules of the scheme are as follows:

  1. Nominate 15 fellow bloggers (gosh, that’s a lot)
  2. Inform the Bloggers of their nomination (I could do this in the style of a twitter spammer!)
  3. Share 7 random things about yourself (see below, tick)
  4. Thank the blogger who nominated you (see above, tick)
  5. Post the award badge. (see above, tick)

My blogging nominations:

  1. The Inelegant Gardener by @happymouffetard. This is my wife’s blog as you can see she has been making me cake, normally she blogs about plants and gardening.
  2. Shakespeare’s England by @daintyballerina. A blog about early modern England, quoting extensively from contemporary sources.
  3. Georgian London by @lucyinglis. It does exactly what it says on the tin: a blog about Georgian London from a social history perspective. A bit quiet these days as Lucy is writing a book of the same title.
  4. The Quack Doctor by @quackwriter. Vignettes of quackery, mainly through the medium of old adverts. Quackwriter aka Caroline Rance is also author of Kill-grief – a story of gin and Chester, both close to my heart.
  5. Billynojob by @billygottajob. We met him first when he was unemployed, now he’s gotta job! Thoughtful commentary on current affairs.
  6. The Renaissance Mathematicus by @rmathematicus. Angry ranting about the history of science.
  7. Reciprocal Space by @Stephen_Curry. Mainly about science policy and processes but also some science.
  8. Purple Persuasion by @Bipolarblogger, who has bipolar disorder. She blogs about things relating to her illness including handy hints for bystanders, which I value greatly.
  9. Andromeda Babe’s Blog by @andromedababe. An occasional blog, mostly about entertaining small children which I read anyway but feel will be essential in the near future.
  10. Stages of Succession by @morphosaurus. Blogs about teaching and a gecko, we “met” because she knew that tunicates “ate their own brains” at the end of their larval stage.
  11. RealClimate, “Climate Science by climate scientists”. This is what I look for in a science blog, up to date, sufficient detail to satisfy a scientist from outside the field.
  12. In Pursuit of History by @GentlemanSykes. A history blog, somewhat quiet since he has been freelancing his writing.
  13. Scott Hanselman’s Computer Zen by @shanselman. Computer things from a Microsoft perspective but also the last point on this.
  14. A Life in the day of a BASICS doctor. Reports from a British Association for Immediate Care doctor, harrowing and deeply moving.
  15. Zygoma by @PaoloViscardi. Mainly mystery objects from the Horniman Museum (on a Friday).

Perhaps a little surprisingly I don’t follow many science blogs, I get my science fixes from New Scientist, Nature, Physics World, and Communications of the ACM, three of them I even get on paper!

Seven random things about me:

  1. At the age of 41, I am to become a father for the first time!
  2. I grew up in Wool
  3. I carry the  ΔF508 variant of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene
  4. In 1986 I was at the top of the score table for Spindizzy in Computer & Video Games magazine
  5. I have no middle name
  6. For a few years I was a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge.
  7. I think Jerusalem Artichokes should be classified as “poisonous”.

And so I pass on to the next members of the chain, who should feel under absolutely no obligation to do anything about this at all!

*More properly Professor Dame Athene Donald, FRS who led the group I worked in at the Cavendish Laboratory.

Jan 18 2012

Strike 2!

PatI’m on strike again today, as I was at the beginning of December when I took the opportunity to write quite generally about the role of trade unions (here).

This time I thought I would write a bit more specifically about why I am on strike.

I joined Unilever in 2004, at the same time joining the final salary pension scheme – I have a leaflet in front of me now explaining the “excellent benefits”. In 2007 the company announced it was closing the final salary scheme to new employees but it said that existing members could remain in the scheme, paying higher contributions to retain their benefits, this is what I have been doing since April 2008, when the changes took effect.

In April 2011 the company announced that it was intending to close the final salary scheme to current members, announcing the start of a statutory “consultation” process.

I’m one of those at the softer end of the impacts: I stand to lose 13% of my pension, prior to the consultation I stood to lose 20%. This is because my already accrued benefits will be eroded by a cap as well as the new career average scheme being less generous than the current scheme, my longer serving colleagues (of which there are many), stand to lose more.

To use an analogy: if you offer to cut my leg off but on consultation decide to only do so below the knee then you’ll find I’m not particularly impressed and explaining that you had “improved” your offer is frankly insulting.

It turns out there are specialist “Pensions Communications” companies, Unilever is using Andrew Hodges Consulting. I’m not sure if it was their idea for Unilever to use jolly little cartoons in the post-consultation communications – but it has been the most effective recruiting sergeant for the strike action!

Much has been made by Unilever of the unions “walking out” of the negotiations – this is a rather partial presentation: the unions left because the company refused to discuss any means by which the final salary scheme could be retained and would not discuss the pre-existing career average scheme in isolation with the unions.

It isn’t as if Unilever is doing badly in terms of profits and executive pay, and even the pension fund is in a pretty healthy state: as of March 2011 the scheme was 91% funded, rising from 89% in March 2010 and 69% in March 2009 – it was effected by the recession but was recovering well. With the career average scheme already in place for new employees, the liabilities of the scheme would have been reduced over the coming years. Contrary to the impression companies might give life expectancy is not improving in great leaps and bounds, it is steadily increasing in a predictable manner and has been for many years.

The company has made much of a “no-fly zone”, an offer to make no further changes for a period of a 2 or 3 years. I don’t expect to draw my pension for another 25 years or so – therefore I can anticipate a good few more changes before I retire. My view is that the company intends to have us on a defined contributions before too long. It highlights the problem with pension schemes in the private sector: how many companies can look forward for the 60 years that a pension requires?

Until recently I was proud to be an employee of Unilever, a company that led the way in looking after its workforce as well as its consumers; a company whose vision for the future was to double the size of the business without increasing the size of its environmental impact.

Today I am no longer proud to work for Unilever.

Jan 16 2012

“Nick Clegg plans more employee ownership”

In the news today: “Nick Clegg plans more employee ownership”, based on a speech to an audience in the City, citing John Lewis as a model of employee participation. John Lewis goes beyond simple employee share ownership, I own shares in Unilever – sadly this hasn’t enabled me to prevent them from cutting my pension. Channel 4’s Fact Check blog has confirmed that employee-ownership often makes for better companies.

Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna response was:

…Mr Clegg was following Labour’s lead on responsible capitalism…

he should really check out the 2010 Liberal Democrat General Election Manifesto 2010, on p27 it says:

We believe that mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises have an important role to play in the creation of a more balanced and mixed economy. Mutuals give people a proper stake in the places they work, spreading wealth through society, and bringing innovative and imaginative business ideas to bear on meeting local needs.

(source)

I’d argue that Labour was following the Liberal Democrats on this.

Chuka Umunna is also the chap, who said on twitter of Ed Miliband’s Radio 4 interview:

Very strong, assured performance from @Ed_Miliband on@BBCr4today this a.m

Funnily enough, Peter Hain said exactly the same thing:

V strong and assured performance by @Ed_Miliband against Humphreys @BBCr4today

Not strong evidence for original thinking.

Footnote

Screenshot here, if you don’t believe me.

Jan 12 2012

Freedom!

Scottish independence is in the air again; the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011, independence for Scotland is the SNP’s signature policy and they have been pushed to state their intentions by the UK parliament (source). Independence is a natural successor to devolution which was achieved by Scotland in 1999 (source). Devolution transferred some powers from the UK parliament to the newly formed Scottish Parliament.

There is at least one anomaly in the current system: the “West Lothian Question”, originally put by Tam Dalyell, member of parliament for West Lothian in 1977:

For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate … at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The label was coined by Enoch Powell.

This is not a hypothetical question: in January 2004 the then Labour government won the vote on university top-up fees by dint of the votes of Scottish Labour MPs whose constituents were unaffected by the changes since university fees are a devolved matter (source).

The West Lothian Question has not been addressed in part because for the instigators of devolution in modern times it is troublesome since it presents the possibility of a government that has a majority in the UK as a whole but not in England and Wales. The logical solution is equivalent devolution for the English regions or indeed all of England; the English regions have never shown much interest in this idea – England has not been given the choice.

From a Conservative point of view, Scottish independence now would have very welcome electoral benefits; at the last General Election, in 2010, Scotland returned 41 Labour MPs, 11 Liberal Democrat, 6 SNP, and 1 Tory MP (source). It did this on vote shares of 42%, 18.9%, 19.9% and 16.7%. The proportional result is 25 Labour, 12 Lib Dem, 12 SNP and 10 Tory. The oft-repeated quip that there are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs is another quirk of the first past the post system. Despite this there is unanimity amongst the national Westminster parties against Scottish independence, presumably they are all reluctant to give up territory, and the glory that Andy Murray brings.

Personally, Scottish independence would make no difference to me; experience with the European Union has shown how freely people can move for work and leisure within the Union, the likelihood is that ties between England and Scotland would be stronger than those with other EU countries. It seems such opinions are not uncommon, YouGov carried out polling after the May 2011 elections which showed 41% of respondents in England and Wales in favour of independence with only 29% of Scots in favour (source). Which begs the question: “Why aren’t our elected representatives representing our views?”

Alex Salmond finds himself in an interesting position, given current opinion poll ratings he would lose an independence poll, and if he won – where would he be? Unrequited desires for independence are the best sort.

Scotland should be entirely viable as an independent country, it has a population of around 5 million, the UK currently has a population of around 60 million. Looking at the populations of other European nations: an independent Scotland is comparable in size to Denmark, Finland and Norway and a little larger than Ireland.(source). Scotland appears to have a fairly diverse economy, financially it would seem that financial flows between Scotland and the rest of the UK are close to balance (source).

I believe in localism: that power should be devolved to the lowest practicable level. Scotland clearly is viable as a country, so my logic is that is how it should be treated.

Jan 07 2012

“French-maid Breast Implants”

I’ve been struggling a bit with the story of PiP and the breast implants, because every time radio presenters say “French-made breast implants”, I hear “French-maid breast implants”.

The BBC has a useful Q&A on the subject here. Essentially the problem is that PiP manufactured breast implants using industrial rather than medical grade silicone, subsequently there have been reports, initially in France, that the rupture rate of these implants is significantly higher than expected. There is no evidence that the implants lead to an increased risk of cancer, given the prevalence of breast cancer it isn’t surprising that some patients with the implants have gone on to develop cancer. The striking thing is that the implants were banned for use in 2010 because they were found to be using industrial grade silicone gel, surely it was at this point that they should have been recalled (i.e. the decision made to remove those already implanted)?

The situation in the food industry is quite different: if a company discovered that one of its suppliers had provided non-food grade ingredients then the product that the company made would be withdrawn from sale pretty much immediately. There would be no waiting around to see if the ingredient was actually hazardous, it would be withdrawn on the grounds that it was out of specification. I’m pretty sure similar applies in the car industry, and the aviation industry. I know this because Mrs S used to work in the food industry; food scares on the morning news always led to an exciting day at work as every retailer sought confirmation that the company she worked for did not use any of the products involved in the scare. Food companies trading legally would have this traceability information.

Healthcare does offer a slightly different scenario, in the sense that carrying out an operation to remove breast implants does carry a risk which means there is a downside to removal, but this is the only relevant consideration: all other things being equal the implants should be removed, by the original installer where possible.

Some people seem to feel that women having breast implants have brought this on themselves, that they shouldn’t be helped on the NHS. Clearly the first port of call for removal is the installer but there are cases in which the installer no longer exists; the NHS is a universal service – if someone has a qualifying medical problem then regardless of how they came by it (excessive eating, drinking, drug taking, climbing, skiing) they are treated free of charge. The same should apply to people who have medical problems arising from surgery outside the NHS – the liability is with the original supplier but sometimes they no longer exist, the patient should not be punished for this.

The Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for regulation in the UK. There is a page on their website about the subject of the PiP breast implants here. Other medical devices, such as replacement joints, appear to be handled differently: alongside the MHRA there is the National Joint Registry, which attempts to register all joint implants, here on the National Joint Registry there is a list of alerts for joints. The MHRA has issued a series of alerts, dating back to March 2010, regarding PiP breast implants (you can see them here), the emphasis has been on establishing the potential toxicity of the filler material. This, presumably, can be done using lab-based testing. The problem seems to be that the rupture rate is relatively unknown, this report in the Telegraph says:

A UK Breast Implant Registry was established in 1993 on the recommendation of the Department of Health to track implant patients’ health, but it closed in 2006 as too few women wished to take part in the scheme.

The final report of the UK Breast Implant Registry is here, and the MHRA confirms that the scheme closed because too few patients would consent to remain in long term follow-up here. This would seem to be the significant factor in this case: there is some follow-up for medical devices but it is voluntary and in the case of breast implants the uptake rate for follow-up was not considered high enough to warrant continuing the process.

It still leaves the question as to why the removal of breast implants made from out of specification materials is not assumed, except for considerations of the safety of the removal operation.