logo
Universities are in turbulent times

Universities are in turbulent times

Universities must not forget their core business, Gareth Jones writes.
Life is turbulent for universities worldwide. If it is not the doctrinaire antipathy towards universities shown by the United States government, it is lack of funding from governments in many other countries.
The outright hostility between government and universities in the US is not commonplace in most other countries, and yet there are subtle forces at play that are creating ongoing concerns.
It is increasingly common to encounter criticism of issues being researched, especially in the humanities, and the "woke" character of academic life and interests. No matter how vague this criticism may be, it is sufficient to justify governments downplaying the stature of universities and their role in society.
Consider the experience of a very high-profile researcher and administrator in the United States. Francis Collins initially came to prominence for identifying the genetic cause of cystic fibrosis. He then led the Human Genome Project and served as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 2009-21.
He was closely associated with the research to find a vaccine against Covid-19 and advocated very strongly for use of vaccines once available.
On his retirement from the NIH he returned as a researcher to the Genome Research Institute.
However, in 2025 he resigned in despair at the wholesale withdrawal of research funds. Since then, Collins has spoken out eloquently against what appears to be a concerted effort to denigrate evidence-based science and its importance in providing a foundation for ongoing medical research.
Although Collins' recent experiences lie largely in research institutes, they exemplify crucial issues for universities — largely in the US, but to a lesser degree in many other countries.
Some people have a low view of research and scholarship, regarding them as a waste of time and money.
They think academics are too liberal, not in touch with ordinary people and need the government to show them what research the country needs.
Such was the rationale last year for shifting the focus of the Marsden Fund away from the humanities and social sciences towards STEM subjects (physics, chemistry, maths, engineering and biomedical sciences).
Whatever the justification for decisions like this, universities need to be aware of society's expectations. Very simply, universities are dependent upon governments for much of their funding, and while they regard themselves as autonomous, this is a circumscribed autonomy.
There has to be respect on both sides, and trust has to be won. Governments and universities cannot exist without each other, no matter how much each may think otherwise.
Universities do not have a right to exist, in much the same way that anatomy schools, that have been central to my academic life, do not have a right to dissect human bodies. They do so only with social licence that has been established over many years with strict ethical guidelines.
Academic freedom is a much-debated aspect of university functioning that can be threatened and abused in many ways. It only exists within an environment that encourages creativity, innovative ideas and criticism of the status quo. It is the freedom to research interesting and on occasion contentious topics that sometimes tread on the toes of politicians, policy makers and even university authorities. It does not sit easily alongside managerialism and conformity. Its protection requires vigilance and acknowledgement that this freedom is to be earned and defended if it is to be retained.
Consider the extreme example of Harvard University, which is being threatened in unimaginable ways by the Trump administration. In refusing to be cowed, its president expressed what universities aspire to be. "Seeking truth ... requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to ... acknowledge our flaws."
Universities must be prepared to defend themselves and their contributions to society, to highlight the benefits of universities but also acknowledge their weaknesses. Their ability to adapt is crucial, which is why they have survived for many hundreds of years. This is only possible as they open themselves to the scrutiny of others and reform themselves.
Academic staff are crucial in leading change and advocating for new perspectives. In my own disciplinary area, until the mid-20th century anatomists dissected unclaimed bodies of the dead in the absence of informed consent by relatives.
It was anatomists themselves who led the way in overturning this practice by insisting that only donated bodies be used.
Universities must never forget that their core business is research and educating domestic students. Unfortunately, lack of adequate funding drives dependence upon the income brought in by international students. Their presence brings in welcome cultural diversity as long as they are seen as more than income generators.
Turbulent times can be productive if faced head on. But universities must continually re-invent themselves and strive to contribute to and enhance their communities.
— Gareth Jones is an emeritus professor, anatomy department, University of Otago.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Many lung cancers are now in non-smokers. Scientists want to know why
Many lung cancers are now in non-smokers. Scientists want to know why

NZ Herald

time9 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Many lung cancers are now in non-smokers. Scientists want to know why

'My family needs me,' she recalled thinking. Chen's case represents a confounding reality for doctors who study and treat lung cancer, the deadliest cancer in the United States. The disease's incidence and death rates have dropped over the last few decades, thanks largely to a decline in cigarette use, but lung cancers unrelated to smoking have persisted. The thinking used to be that smoking was 'almost the only cause of lung cancer', said Dr Maria Teresa Landi, a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. However, worldwide roughly 10% to 25% of lung cancers now occur in people who have never smoked. Among certain groups of Asian and Asian American women, that share is estimated to be 50% or more. These cancers are increasingly drawing the attention of researchers like Landi, who are studying the role that environmental exposures, genetic mutations, or other risk factors might play. They have already found some early hints, including a clear link to air pollution. Physicians are also testing new approaches to better detect lung cancer in non-smokers. They are trying to understand why it is more prevalent: in people of Asian ancestry; in women; and why it is being seen among younger people. 'We all still think about the Marlboro man as what lung cancer looks like,' said Dr Heather Wakelee, chief of oncology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. In many cases, though, that's no longer true. 'We're just baffled as to why,' she said. Looking for Clues Many lung cancers in non-smokers have no known cause and are discovered only by chance. That was the case for Sandra Liu, 59, who lives in New Jersey. Liu was diagnosed this year with adenocarcinoma, the most common type of lung cancer among non-smokers. Doctors found the mass after she had a full-body check-up during a visit to China — a process popular with some Chinese expatriates visiting the country that includes a chest scan. 'I would have never thought to go for a CT,' she said, noting she had no major symptoms and never smoked. Scientists are starting to see that the biology of cancer in non-smokers like Liu differs from cancers seen in people with a smoking history — and may require different strategies for prevention and detection. One large study, called 'Sherlock Lung' and led by Landi and colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, is looking at the mutational signatures, or patterns of mutations across the cancer genomes, of 871 non-smokers with lung cancer from around the world. Their latest findings, published in Nature this month, showed that certain mutations, or changes to DNA, were much more common in people who lived in areas with high amounts of air pollution — for example, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Uzbekistan. More pollution was linked to more mutations. The study did not include data from India, considered to have the highest levels of outdoor pollution. The researchers didn't just find that pollution may directly damage DNA. They also saw signs that pollution causes cells to divide more rapidly, which further increases the likelihood of cancer. Studies have also shown that people who don't smoke but have a family history of lung cancer, such as Chen and Liu — both of Liu's grandfathers had the disease — are at increased risk. This could be because of shared genetics, a common environment or both, said Dr Jae Kim, chief of thoracic surgery at City of Hope in Duarte, California. And scientists know that non-smokers with lung cancer are more likely than people who smoked to have certain kinds of 'driver' mutations, changes to the genome that can cause cancer and drive its spread, Kim said. In contrast, people who smoke tend to accumulate many mutations over time that can eventually lead to cancer. This difference in the type of mutations may be one reason why lung cancer among people under-50 is more prevalent among nonsmokers than smokers. Leah Phillips at her home in Peewee Valley, Kentucky. Photo / Jon Cherry, the New York Times There are probably other factors, too, including exposure to radon, asbestos and possibly aristolochic acid, a compound once common in traditional Chinese medicine. Landi's research linked the compound to lung cancer mutations among Taiwanese patients. Taiwan banned products containing it in 2003. Studies from Asia have also suggested second-hand smoke, fumes from cooking oils, and a history of tuberculosis or other lung disease as possible culprits. However, these potential contributors are less common in the US, where Asian American women who don't smoke are still nearly twice as likely as other women to be diagnosed with the disease, said Scarlett Gomez, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. To understand what's driving the disparity in the US, Gomez, Wakelee and colleagues at other Northern California institutions are now studying the relationships among genes, environmental contaminants and lung cancer in Asian American non-smoking women. 'Ultimately, we want to be able to come up with actionable risk factors, just like we do for breast cancer and colorectal cancer,' Gomez said. Revisiting Screening Guidance Studies like Gomez's may help address the question of who should be screened for lung cancer. In the US, routine screening is recommended only for people aged 50 to 80 who smoked at least the equivalent of one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. Because of that, lung cancer in non-smokers is often not caught until it's advanced, said Dr Elaine Shum, an oncologist at NYU Langone Health. That can have devastating consequences for patients like Chen, who is still undergoing treatment after a third metastasis of her cancer. Shum and others are now exploring whether screening should be expanded. In Taiwan, a nationwide trial tested the effectiveness of CT scans in people aged 55 to 75 who never smoked but had one other risk factor. Doctors detected cancer in 2.6% of patients — enough that Taiwan now offers routine screening for non-smokers with a family history of lung cancer. Shum and colleagues recently ran a similar pilot study among women of Asian ancestry who were 40 to 74 and had never smoked. In preliminary results from about 200 patients, they found invasive cancer at comparable rates to the Taiwan study. Data from the full set of 1000 patients who were screened is forthcoming. Still, it would take far more research to determine who in the US, if anyone, would benefit from broader screening and whether it could meaningfully reduce lung cancer deaths. Screening more people can lead to more false positives, which may mean patients get biopsies and other interventions they don't need. And some cancers doctors find are so slow growing that they may never cause harm, said Dr Natalie Lui, a thoracic surgeon at the Stanford University School of Medicine. 'What if we're taking out all these tiny lung cancers that would not have been life-threatening?' Lui said. On the flip side, she thinks of the patients she regularly sees who have aggressive or advanced lung cancers but never smoked. 'If there was screening, we could save their life,' Lui said. The good news is that survival with advanced cancers has improved with newer therapies that effectively keep the disease at bay for years in many patients. Such treatments have benefited Leah Phillips, of Pewee Valley, Kentucky. Doctors first mistakenly diagnosed her with asthma and then anxiety. Later, they said she had pneumonia. When an oncologist finally told her in 2019 that she had metastatic lung cancer, he gave her six to 12 months to live. 'Go home and get your affairs in order,' Phillips remembered him saying. She was 43, and her children were 9, 13, and 14. 'I'm not leaving my kids,' Phillips thought. After getting a second opinion, she started taking a drug that targets one of the driver mutations in lung cancer. She prayed to make it to her eldest child's graduation. 'I cried through his entire senior year,' she said. In June, she watched her middle child graduate. 'Now I need to make it to the next one,' she said. Phillips, who co-founded a non-profit called the Young Lung Cancer Initiative to increase awareness of the condition, said people look at her askance when she tells them she has lung cancer but never smoked. They didn't know it was possible. It's not your grandfather's lung cancer anymore, she tells them. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Nina Agrawal and Allison Jiang Photographs by: Shuran Huang, Jon Cherry ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES

‘Perfect Storm' Of Global Crises Drove Years Of Food Price Surges: FAO
‘Perfect Storm' Of Global Crises Drove Years Of Food Price Surges: FAO

Scoop

time15 hours ago

  • Scoop

‘Perfect Storm' Of Global Crises Drove Years Of Food Price Surges: FAO

22 July 2025 The report, to be released later this month, reveals how between 2020 and 2024, the world experienced a dramatic increase in food prices driven by a combination of COVID-19 inflation, the war in Ukraine restricting movements on food and commodities, and increasing climate shocks. 'The episodes described in this publication bring up what we call a perfect storm,' said Mr. Torero Cullen. Máximo Torero Cullen speaks to journalists at the UN HQs via video link. First, he explained that during the COVID-19 pandemic, governments launched fiscal stimulus and relief packages, which increased demand and, thus, global inflation. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine compounded this crisis. Before the war began in 2022, Ukraine was a key exporter of wheat, sunflower oil and fertilisers. The war not only restricted these exports but disrupted trade routes and pushed up fuel and input costs, which amplified inflation across the world. Additionally, increasingly frequent and intense climate shocks in major producing regions – such as droughts, floods and heat waves – further aggravated food inflation. Worldwide impacts Only in 2024 did prices return to pre-COVID levels, meaning that households struggled for multiple years to afford food, with major consequences. As real wages fell while food prices increased, household purchasing power was eroded. Households responded by buying cheaper and less nutritious food, reducing meal frequency, and often prioritising meals for certain family members and reducing intake for women and children. Mr. Torero Cullen also explained that an increase in food prices directly correlates to an increase in moderate and severe food insecurity. The impacts of this were particularly harsh in Africa and Western Asia, where food imports, dependence and currency depreciation made food even more expensive. Moreover, as food prices increased, nutrition outcomes among children under five worsened. The SOFI report illustrated that a 10 per cent food price increase led to a 2.7 to 6.1 per cent increase in moderate to severe wasting, which has long-lasting effects on child development and public health systems. Notably, these grave impacts were uneven, mostly affecting low-income and African countries – many of which are still seeing worsening figures. During the peak of the crisis in January 2023, some low-income countries experienced food price inflation of up to 30 per cent, compared to 13.6 per cent globally. Policy recommendations Mr. Torero Cullen finished his briefing by outlining the policy prescriptions detailed in the SOFI report. He first underscored targeted fiscal support. 'Social protection measures are the most effective response to food price spikes,' he explained. 'This will protect vulnerable populations without creating long-term fiscal risk or market distortions.' He also highlighted avoiding trade disruptions, coordinating monetary and fiscal policies, improving market transparency, and institutional preparedness as essential components for avoiding future crises. 'This SOFI underscores that inflation can undermine progress. It underlines our vulnerabilities, and it also brings the importance of strengthening resilience, inclusiveness and transparency to be able to avoid and minimize the risk of these problems,' he concluded.

Natural hazards policy – have we learned nothing?
Natural hazards policy – have we learned nothing?

Newsroom

time19 hours ago

  • Newsroom

Natural hazards policy – have we learned nothing?

Having spent the past week suffering from the effects of yet another Covid hit, I have now caught up on my emails, which included a reminder to make a submission by July 27 on the proposals to create or change various national direction instruments under the Resource Management Act, including natural hazards. This ties in with an issue I raised in my last column, where I said I still could not believe that we do not yet have a National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards. Putting this in place after the earthquakes should have been a no-brainer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store