06/02/2014 Newsnight


Police complaints radically reformed. The terror threat to Sochi. Cancer adverts. Separating the art from the unsavoury artist. Too few women scientists?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's the Love Actually moment for the union. The Prime Minister will


tomorrow make his most emotive appeal so far to keep Scotland in


the UK. Will evoking the Team GB Olympic spirit play better at


Westminster than in the Western Isles.


On the eve of the winter Olympic, new warnings from US security about


the terror threat. We have exclusive new information.


We have heard directly from the militant group threatening to take


the games in so muchy. They have told us Russia's unprecedented


security measures won't stop them. Also tonight, cancer envy. I wish I


had testicular cancer. I wish I had breast cancer. Noel Hunter, whose


daughter died of cancer, takes issue with the charity who dreamt up the


campaign. Good evening, David Cameron has


clearly decided that the time has come for him to try to take the


debate over Scotland's independence by the throat. Newsnight has learned


that tomorrow the Prime Minister will use the site of the London


Olympics to rally the whole of the UK to the cause of the union.


Envoking triumphs there and equating them with the success of the UK.


Joined from Glasgow. What do we know about the speech? First where it is


going to take place, as you say he will wrap himself, not only in the


colours of the Union Flag, the red, white and blue, but also try to wrap


himself in the gloryies of that very British summer of 2012, when


athletes from all four of the home nation competed together as Team GB,


he will evoke that spirit very positively, he will say for me the


best thing about the Olympics was not the winning but the red white


and blue, everybody cheering as one team for GB. It is that team he


wants to talk about the United Kingdom. He will also and clearly


try to outline an alternative patriotism for the Scots, an British


patriotism. He's addressing people outside Scotland, voters who don't


have a vote in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that although they


don't have a vote they can have a say. They can try to persuade


friends in Scotland of the vert its of staying in the union. He is


saying from us to the people of Scotland let the message be this, we


want them to stay. He's calling on the people of Northern Ireland and


England to intervene in the debate and showing they care. Why now?


There is a growing sense that Whitehall are pretty rattled by the


way they are going. The polls show the gap between yes and no to


independence is narrowing. One poll a couple of weeks ago showed that


the support for yes to independence had increased by five points since


September. Support for no had dropped five points since September.


That makes the gap, according to that poll only 7%. That gap is. In


the euro election, coming in May, it looks like UKIP will do well in


England, according to the same poll, the SNP are set to take 42% and UKIP


in Scotland 7%. That will enable the nationalists to argue who are the


real isolationists in this debate. Who are the real seperatists? Not


us. There is a accepts here that some people, some undecided voters


are on some kind of journey from no to yes. And there is emerge anything


Scotland a block of people who are not nationalists, who don't like


nationalism and never supported Alex Salmond, but nonetheless will vote


yes. That is very concerning in Whitehall. How do you think the


tenor of this speech will go down in Scotland and the rest of the UK? In


the rest of the UK it has been pretty hard to engage the rest of


the UK in the debate. Traditionally most people outside Scotland have


seen this as a matter traditionally for the Scots alone. Except where it


impacts on people outside of Scotland. But in Scotland the risks


are very clear. David Cameron has stayed out of it until now, because


he knows a certain kind of stridant, Epping illusion, Conservative voice


has a very negative effect in Scotland. Remember of the 59


Westminster MPs only one is a Conservative. And that the coalition


that governs the UK at the moment is consisting of two parties that came


third and fourth in Scotland. There is a legitimacy question. And David


Cameron has stayed out of it. He knows he risks playing into the


hands of nationalists and being called a coward for failing to


answer Alex Salmond's call to debate directly with the Scottish minister.


We will expect a robust response from the nationalists tomorrow


morning. What is this saying about the Better Together Scotland


campaign at the moment? Even the supporters of the Better Together


campaign say it sounds very negative and picking apart Alex Salmond's


plans for independence, they have sounded as if they have nothing


positive to offer. Whatever the merits of their case, the overall


impression is the telling of the Scottish people you are not up to


it, you can't do it, get back in your box. There is some polling


evidence that is backfiring. Many people say it is turned into a


battle between hope on the yes side and fear on the no side. There is


also a question mark over whether Darling is the right man now to lead


this campaign. He's highly respected, highly regarded across


the political spectrum, are his talents really geared towards


enthusing people in Scotland about the positive British patriotism. It


is that, I think, that gap that David Cameron is trying to close


with the speech tomorrow. The prison sentence handed to the policeman who


attempted to stitch ups former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has rocked the


police. It comes as at a time when the public trust in them has been


damaged. Emily Maitlis learns of radical plans to beef up the police


Complaints Comissioning and doubling the number of detectives that keep


an Ian the police over the next few years. Police constable Keith


Wallis, jailed today for 12 months for his part in bringing down the


former Conservative Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell. Wallis originally


claimed he witnessed the Mitchell incident at the Downing Street


gates. It turned out he was lying. The Wallis case may be a one-off, a


single officer gone rogue, yet it comes at a time when public trust in


the police has been badly damaged. By the inquiry into the police


shooting of Mark Duggan, the botched examination of the death of Ian


Tomlinson. The allegations that the police tried to smear the family of


Stephen Lawrence after his death, and by Hillsborough of course.


Although these incidents are few and far between, it is the drip feed,


case after case badly handled that has convinced the Home Office of the


need for change. Not just to the police themselves, but of the


watchdog that polices them. The Independent Police Complaints


Commisssion. Part of the problem is the IPCC has been seen as too close


to the very officers it is meant to be investigating, something that has


done little to reassure the public of its independence. The body is


perceived to be staffed by, as one observer put it, former officers who


have been put out to grass. Or perhaps not to grass, would be


rather more accurate. I am concerned that over a third of the officers


are police officers themselves. I don't know where the judicial


investigatory legal skills are in the body. And I think that's


probably why it is not taken seriously by the public when they


really are concerned that something has gone wrong. But also


increasingly it seems by the police themselves. Over the coming months,


the commission will begin a radical overhaul. Up to 300 new


investigators will be brought in over three years, more than doubling


their current number. And to pay for all of this the IPCC will have its


budget increased by almost 50%. The IPCC budget is ?33 million. Of that


?13 million spent on investigations and case work. I understand ?18


million additional money will be made available to the IPCC. Top


sliced from across the other forces. The Home Office also says it is open


to demands from the IPCC, for more powers. What in fect we have to have


with the IPCC is a separate police force that has all of the powers


over the police that the police have overthat has all of the powers over


the police that the police have over us, including the power to sup


peania witnesses and access to documents. We need a set of judicial


untouchables. This year the commission will take control of all


cases deemed serious and sensitive. Last year out of more than 2,000


cases that came to its door, only 120 were handled in-house. The rest


were thrown back to the police forces themselves. From now on the


IPCC will be expected to investigate three-times as many as it currently


does. The difficulty is, there has to be a trade-off. If you have


former police officers who are experienced and skilled


investigators, they are more likely to be able to carry out complex


investigations. If you bring in totally new people, with no


experience, then they might not be able to get to the bottom of things.


The IPCC has said its seems are: When everyone is calling for the


need to reform, the Government has been happy to show its court the


public mood. Indeed, to put the money where its collective mouth is.


The bigger question, perhaps, is whether the public buy it.


Tomorrow's Opening Ceremony in Sochi will be designed to dazzle all nay


sayers. It won't be enough to hide the country's resurgent antigay


laws, today a letter was signed by many authors or the looming specter


of terrorism. Following a warning by the US Department of Homeland


Security of a credible threat that terrorists may try to smuggle


explosives into the country in toothpaste tube, various journalists


reported they cleared airport security with all sorts of lotions


and tubes in their hand luggage. Tonight we have heard from the group


that has threatened to attack the Sochi games. Sochi is primed and


ready, with brand spanking new state of the arts sports facilities. It is


the most expensive Olympics ever. It is all happening just a few hundred


miles away from Europe's bloodiest insurgency. Vladimir Putin isn't


spending upwards of ?30 billion just to show some athletes a good time.


This is about Russian pride. But meanwhile, scenes like these play


themselves out daily in Dagestan and elsewhere in southern Russia.


Security forces are battling Islamist militants. For Putin these


games are about projecting an image of a Russia on the rise. But it is


not only the Russian Government that wants to take advantage of the


international spotlight on Sochi of the In a video posted on the


Internet last month, a group calling itself Villia Dagestan threatened to


give a present to Mr Putin if Russia went ahead with the games. For the


tourists visiting Sochi they continued there would be a present


too. We contacted the group, they reiterated their threat, they made


it clear their intended targets would go beyond Sochi. In December


500 miles from Dagestan a suicide bomber blew himself up at the train


session in Volgegrad, well within Russia proper. The following day


another blast, on a trolley bus in the same city. Both attacks were


claimed by the name group. In response a security cordon has been


thrown up around Sochi. Around 40,000 police and soldiers have been


deployed, unprecedented levels of security, say the authorities. The


games are safe. TRANSLATION: All of our guests at the Olympics, all the


sportsmen can be absolutely reassured, the Olympic Games will go


ahead at the highest level, and with complete security. But some fear as


the Opening Ceremony approaches Russia is vulnerable. The biggest


problems is many troops are brought to Sochi from other regions. They


are not very familiar with the ground. That's why I don't think


they will be very useful to detect and identify possible suicide


bombers. That is the one thing, also we need to remember that not only


Sochi, but so other cities in central Russia are under threat. And


that it's quite clear that for militants the timing is much more


crucial than location. This man, top of Russia's list of most wanted


terrorists last year urged his followers to do whatever it took to


disrupt the games. Which he called "a Satanic dance on the bones of the


ancestors of the people of the north caucuses". He was tapping into a


deep seam of resentment that goes back more than 200 years, to the


Tsarrist conquest of the caucuses in the 18th and 19th century. These


winter Olympics are taking place 150 years after Russian forces expelled


the population from the area around Sochi, killing those who resisted,


burning villages to the ground. Russia's two post-Soviet wars in


Chechnya are still raw in the memories of the people there, and


the current conflict, centered around Dagestan, claimed more than


500 lives last year. If you break it down that is what has been driving


the fight for the last 200 years, is that the Russian response to any


sign of rebellion from the people of the caucuses has always been an


overwhelming force. They were destroying Chechen villages in the


1780s and into the early 21st sent treatment the tactics remain


identical and the response of individual people on a strictly


human level is the same. To fightback and in the best way they k


which is on a small scale level at small targets because the Russian


army is too strong and they don't have a choice. Certainly a strong


sense of historical grievance fuels this current conflict, but few in


the north caucuses support the aims of the militants with their dream of


an Islamic state on Russia's southern flank. We challenge the


militants on this point, and asked them how they could justify killing


innocent people in pursuit of their aims. They responded as


The militants accuse the Russian security forces of kidnapping,


beating, torturing and even killing innocent civilians in their on going


campaign to pacify the north caucuses. Jo they have a pint but


only telling half the story, they are doing exactly those things as


well, there are no good guys in this particular tale. The response to,


instead of inflicting your revenge on the people who have done this to


you, but to inflict your revenge on innocent people in a station or


theatre goers in Moscow or schoolchildren is obviously


unspeakable. It is a cycle of brutality that no-one appears to be


willing to stop. It is less than 24 hours to the Opening Ceremony, for


two weeks Sochi will be at the centre of global attention. But


Russia's forgotten war will continue just a few hundred miles distant


from and I way from the world's days. Cancer is no respecter of


colour, creed, age or income, but some cancers are more aggressive


than others, some harder to treat, so far so uncontroversialal. Now a


cancer charity, pancreatic action, has split cancer sufferers alike. It


has kicked off a campaign which ranks different forms of the disease


and employs pancreatic sufferers to say that other cancers, such as


breast cancer and testicular cancer will be preferable to their's. Ask I


wish I had testicular cancer. I wish I had breast cancer. Early diagnosis


saves lives. If you have any of these symptoms see your doctor. Or


go to the website. Joining me is a pancreatic survivor and Gloria


Hunniford, the presenter who has set up the Caron Keating foundation in


memory of her daughter who died of breast cancer in 2004. Gloria


Hunniford, when you saw this advert at first, what did you make of it?


Well, up front I would like to just establish that through our


foundation we give grants all year round to all forms of cancer


including pancreatic cancer. I'm not against raising funds or awareness


for any kind of cancer. I have to tell you feel almost sick when I


read the words "I wish I had breast cancer". I personally think this is


a very insensitive commercial and very insensitive and misguided way


of going about raising awareness and funds. I'm coming from a deeply


personal point of view. I watched my daughter battle breast cancer for


seven years and spreading to the bones, at no time would she have


preferred another form, she didn't want it at all. Did you set out to


be controversial? We set out to raise awareness for a disease that


gets very little attention, and we did want to make sure that we got


our messages heard. But do you, you would accept that you knew that


would shock a lot of people, people who have cancer and otherwise? Yes,


we thought it would spark debate. And I think if people look just at


the the headline, "I wish I had breast cancer", if you take that in


its entirety, then if you are only looking at that then that is


shocking. It would be fair to say, Gloria Hunniford, that some cancers


do attract more interest and funding. I'm thinking particularly


of breast cancer with pink ribbon, the moon walk? That is not really


the point, you see. Imagine you went into your doctor, heaven forbid it


happens to you, you go into a doctor and say Kirsty I have to tell you


I'm so glad you didn't get pancreatic cancer but you have


breast cancer. In my opinion you cannot play one against the other.


In fact I want to read out, I purposely took it out of the


statement today, o of the major breast cancer charities said "We


strongly dispute any message to suggest that one type of cancer is


preferable to another". Where did that phrase come from? This is the


thought of many patients with pancreatic cancer, they face a 3%,


five-year survival rate. When I was diagnosed in 2007 I wished I had a


cancer. I can't wish for cancer or wish it on anybody, but I wanted


something that would give me a better chance of survival. I didn't


know at that point I would get to be one of those 3%. I'm thrilled, it is


fantastic you are one of the great survivors, but in my humble opinion,


you have a new drug you advertised today. And I think that the purpose


of any ad to raise funds or awareness of any cancer is surely to


have a more positive message, instead of having, for me any way,


instead of a negative phrase. And people read papers, "I wish I had


breast cancer", it makes people's stomachs turn over. You would accept


the funding for pancreatic cancer has changed radically, it has gone


from ?1. 5 to ?5. 1 million. It is a huge step forward for you? It is


baby steps. But you have a share of the pot that is ?521 million? The


share of the pot that pancreatic gets in the site-specific area is


less than 1%. When there is research into, for example, ovarian cancer,


that informs breast Cancer Research and other cancers always inform


other cancers. Do you accept that. Or because you feel that because


pancreatic cancer is harder to detect, it can be very aggressive


and in the way it doesn't attract the same interest as other cancers?


It doesn't, it is the lack of awareness. A lot of people in the


public actually perceive that pancreatic cancer has had some of


the same advances as many other cancers, I even had it said to me


that they have made great strides and things have improved. And you


know, they can do so much these days. Well, they can't with


pancreatic cancer, the only way to have a curative option is to be


diagnosed in time for surgery, which was lucky to do so. The problem with


pancreatic cancer is most people don't understand enough about it. We


don't know enough about the disease. Is that fair to say? It is to a


point. Of course it is true, and many, many cancers want to raise


awareness and funds. I just feel, of course I come from a personal point


of view, I STRECHLTS I feel a shock -- stress, I feel a shock tactic


isn't the most correct and sensible way to go about it. Do you stand by


it? I do, because the messages come from patients. That is coming from


patients. Do you think that's said by patients as said as a time of


great anguish and not when there would be other circumstances and it


is a natural reaction, it was your a reaction when you were diagnosed,


but to move forward there has to be a more positive response. Agreed,


what we need to do is raise awareness of the symptoms. Can I


just ask, is there an issue about too many small individual different,


understandable, cancer charities? You would probably have a point,


could I just say when you talk about you know shock tactics and wanting


and standing by, raising money and awareness for this, it is at a cost,


for example a very good friend of mine is having a double mastectomy


tomorrow morning, try showing her this ad and try to let her have


sympathy for another cancer. Thank you very much. Can you love the art


but abhor the artist, David Aaronovitch stepped right into the


controversy over Woody Allen's alleged paedophilia and asked should


it colour our view of his movies. In short the answer was no, he still


loves Annie Hall and Hannah and her Sisters. He sets a myriad of


example, Eric Gill, the music of The Lost Prophets profit. . First we


have this. We turn to the arts to provoke and arouse us, to stir our


emotions. But are some artists beyond the pale because of what they


have been accused of doing, or the views they espouse? They rolled out


the welcome mat at the Golden Globes last month for Woody Allen's latest


film. Among the many stars at the event, no sign of the director


himself, who won a Lifetime Achievement Award. But his latest


film, Blue Jasmine was represented by Kate Blackpool Cate Blanchett,


who was named best actress. The prize-giving season has been


overshadowed by a letter of Woody Allen's adopted daughter. She has


accused him of attacks her at seven. Allen called her allegations


"disgraceful and untrue" he pointed out that he has never been charged


over her claims. But some say they could sway members of the academy.


Awards' panels are made up of human beings full of foibles, and all of


us on prize committees know how arbitary and idiosyncratic the


process is. I wouldn't be surprised if it swayed people. These are PR


enterprises and people wouldn't want the bad PR. But novelist Lionel


Schriver that the allegations have no bearing on her view of his film.


I won't lose sleep over what happened, because it is not


ultimately any of my business. It is not an artistic matter. It is not


going to stop me from going to see his films. The unreliable business


of reading across from an artist's life from his work is nothing new.


Some music lovers have agonised over the composer Wagner, how to


reconcile his genius with his avowed anti-semitism. I don't think there


is an algorithm which allows us to settle all these case, the cases are


different. The reason Wagner is different, he attempted an


intellectual articulation and defence of anti-semitism. There is,


of course, a hugely controversial question as to whether that


anti-semitism then as it were seeps into the music. Prospe rocks o and


Aerial by Eric Gill can be seen on the building where this programme is


transmitted, he committed paedophilia and enjoyed himself with


the family pet. What I find curious is that we nevertheless expect


artists to do so, accept these unimpeachable lies. There is this


acceptance of the creator, almost a quasi-supernatural being in some


ways. I enjoy watching films or reading books, as objects completely


apart from their creators. I'm probably unusual in this respect.


But I suffer from aposity of curiosity about the creators, I


don't really want to know about them. Let as discuss that now with


the novelist and broadcaster Kazeem Adeleke. Do you agree there is an


algorithm? Yes, I think sometimes, I think what tends to happen is that


for an artist if they are dealing, as most artists do, with looking at


the human condition with humanity, of what their humanity and points of


view and their foibles are, they will some how appear in the work,


just to give you a little example, you know, there is controversy over


Nye Paul and whether he should have got the Nobel Prize or not. It is


not that they are allegations that he may be a racist or he doesn't


like black cultures, it is not that he says in his work. It is not that


there is a problem of what he might say in his work with black cultures.


What tends to happen is the racism seeps into the area. For example he


says he does have great regard for black duals, then -- cultures, then


we learn in his buy could go fee he doesn't like music. -- biography, he


doesn't like music. The take on his biography is he has no musical


response. Can that be a personal read organise is it societial


depending on the circumstance? You could argue, it has been argued by


Wagner for instance, that you can, I mean he did this famous work abo


Judaism in music, which is a condemnation of the role of the Jew


in society, and so on. That is very, which in itself is kind of clearly a


precursor to what subsequently happens. What people then say about


the music is he see these character, evil characters, you see in them


proto-type calm Jewish character -- prototypical Jewish characters,


which it is hard to separate from the anti-semitism. Others find it


easy to separate. By and large you do find it difficult? I think by and


large we have to. The origin of this discussion in my mind was an article


by the New York Times columnist Nicholas Christophe, two or three


years ago where he actually gave space to Dylan Farrow to say her


accusation, he asked why are we honouring this man when he's not


unimpeachably honourable. In other words, if there was any doubt about


whether or not he personally was honourable, then we shouldn't honour


the art. That is innocent until proven guilty? No it is simply you


should read across the art. You should taken a attitude to the art


based on what you think he might have done or did do personally. I


don't think that is fair necessarily, I think that some how


an artist's sensibility and attitudes do often come across in


the work. But not often in straight forward ways. So it would be very


dangerous to go from an allegation to somebody's private life to


refusing them an artistic prize. Is there a cosy consensus around art,


there is allegations about Lucien Freud and so forth. People choosing


to separate things and for some people it is more different. I was


thinking of are yous -- Bertram Russell and he was not very nice.


Does that make him a philosopher. People don't remember it, if


Caravaggio did the things people say he did what would happen. This is a


calibration, we have had Ian Watkins, the lead singer of the The


Lost Prophets, who has done the most terrible things, as a consequence


the music won't be played on the radio and disappeared from HMV. But


you can find it on Apple I tunes, the artwork wasn't enough to overlay


the association. Was it so contemporary and shocking that it


would ever outweigh it? If it was a beatle? Interesting question? At the


moment in American music there is a story around R Kelly, massive star.


They have there have been on going issues around him and his alleged


allegations about him and his relationships with under-age or


borderline aged people. Particularly in the Chicago area he grew up in.


What is happening now is he's trying to relaunch his career and get back


in the spotlight. Some of these allegations have esurfaced. What is


notable it doesn't seem to affect his cells. It is also noticeable


that some of the people who are in his target age group. It doesn't


affect their wish to buy his songs. It is very difficult, I wonder if


one of the problems we have in the west is there is a quick separation


from artists and other people in the west. In other countries, in African


countries the artist is seen more as somebody who is part of the wider


community and his work, a lot of his work, there is a level of social


work, he leads the masquerades and the social celebrations. It is in


the west where we have the high distinction, maybe we get into


trouble because of it. The astrophysicist, Dame Jocelyn Bell


Burnett, who discovered pulsars, has been elected the first female


President of the Royal Society in Edinburgh. The first one was founded


in 1873. It is ironic her appointment coincides with a


parliamentary report that aments just how bad this country is doing


in attracting women into the sciences and engineering


professions. 17% of so called STEM professors are women. The report


says that at school there is a commendable emphasis on inspiring


young girls to do science. It is a waste of effort if women are


disadvantaged in scientific careers compared to men. Rosalind Franklin


is one of the most significant but overlooked female scientists,


playing a crucial role in discovering DNA, but never the


proper credit for her work. Today's report acknowledges things have


moved on since her day. Franklin is now a role model. American science


students created this rap song in her honour, to inspire more women to


get into science. # Recognise Rosalind Franklin Here


in the UK more girls are studying scien subjects in school and


university. But at higher levels in the field there are fewer women than


men. Especially in acedemia. Out of all the jobs in science, technology,


engineering and maths. Only 13% are held by women. According to today's


report, short-term contracts for those finishing their PhDs lead many


younger women to leave the field, as they lack the job stability they


need to start a family. That's the case with this scientist, who will


be hanging up her lab coat in a few weeks. As I'm 30, it is coming to


the fore, I would like to start a family and have a mortgage. And the


nature of the work is shored contracts and long hours. And I'm


not sure how compatible that is with what I want for my personal life.


Should we worry that there aren't equal number of male and female


scientists, today's report says yes, not only because they can bring


fresh perspectives but because the economy needs more. Anna runs a


network reporting women in science and engineering, she agrees? Aside


from the fact that it is enically a good thing to be giving everybody


equal opportunity, it is really about releasing potential. We know


that the UK economy depends on higher numbers of science and


engineering graduates, we are underusing half our population. But


funding for schemes promoting diversity in the sector have been


cut drastically. The authors of today's report are alling for


diversity training and recruitment and managers, and more long-term


contracts to try to attract more women into stem industries. Joining


me to discuss is the science minister and head of engineering at


Cambridge, and an academic and TV presenter. This is pretty


depressing? It is indefensible, we do need to do better. As the report


said, it is a waste of talent. Do you think you didn't fight your


corner well enough when it came to the funding. It is shocking isn't


it. Improving diversity in stem, this spending was halved in the 2010


Spending Review. UK resource centre for womens science and technology in


2012 had its funding cut. What we have We have put more effort in


achieving diversity through the mainstream provision. Through, for


example, for the first time, saying that ?200 million teaching capital


is going for the universities. When they bid for it they have to show


what they are doing to encourage diversity, particularly women. We


are putting more effort in than ever before. But there is more needs to


be done. As under s or factity? There is also an issue about the


post graduate career structure. There isn't really one? There are


men and women affected by these short-term contracts which, is why


again we have got an ask for better careers advice and support at the


start of people's very search careers than they have received. It


is partly the university's fault for not getting their act together and


attracting women properly? We have put a lot of effort into attracting


women. But still not enough. Undergraduate level in engineering,


that is one of the hardiest areas to actually get our message across. The


country needs engineerses are great jobs in engineering. At


undergraduate level in my department we have about 23% women. Nationally


it is only 14%. Why are you failing to attract women into engineering,


engineering is hugely exciting, you can travel the world with fantastic


contracts, you would think to build bridges it may take three years to


build, all that kind of stuff is fulfilling. I don't know, quite


often young girls in school don't know what exciting careers there are


in engineering. Or the breadth that engineering covers. I don't think we


do a good job of making that communication in this country. What


do you think? I think Anne is exactly right, some of it is about


good careers advice in school, some of it is breaking down gender


stereotypes, it is very clear, we know girls are capable of doing


these subjects but they are not doing them through to A-levels. Only


one in five at A-level physics is fee Tiel. Is there a bias in the


culture? It starts very early. One of the recommendations in the report


is we need to tackle the gender stereotypes extremely early, going


back to primary school. Absolutely, outreach, we start with the primary


school kids and get them in and do something exciting, build solar


cars. How can you change the culture? Would there have to be a


radical change of primary school, not only in the contracts but in the


general career prosession. I think there is one specific point, it is


the GCSE to A-level. Only water of the girls who get an A* in GCSE


physics go on to A-level physics. That is a tendency to switch to


medicine as an aspiration and drop the physics and go down the life


sciences. We need to have a wider range of disciplines. Why don't


they? One of the things that we find is that it is actually not enough to


get the seven and eight-year-olds enthused about engineering, it is


good to get parents in as well. When we have outreach activities, if we


have one or both of the parents and a couple of kids building something,


they all get to share the excitement and realise what the width of


engineering is about. This isn't simply about redressing all the


gender problems, it is about addressing the issue of having


enough physicists and chemists and the lot. It was very much retention


and we are seeing women dropping out of acedemia, and very few becoming


professors. Going back to the funding cuts, UK RC the resource


centre for women in Skypes was one of the few areas where there were


resources to look after women in their careerses and help them to


progress and retain women. That was identified in the report as being is


something that quite a few bodies didn't know. Alice is saying the


resource centre is hugely successful? When I see what we are


doing with our stem ambassadors and setting conditions for the receipt


of capital funding in way it never happened before. I think we are


across the main treatment of rescreamed and years advice, trying


to offer more encouragement. What about the portrayal of science in


the media, do you think there is enough done in popular science


programme, dramatic portrayals as women as scientists. The BBC does


very well. You would have to say that. We have many women who are


good and strong role models. Going back, the girls choosing to A-level


of physics will look in the skills whether or not there are girls. We


know in half of comprehensive schools there are no girls studying


A-level physics. Putting more on television? In other areas? Think it


is really important there are role models, that is another thing that


came out of the report as well. It is incredibly important for women to


be able to look ahead to what they are going to study and careers and


see there are women already. There it is very difficult because at the


moment only 17% of science professors are women. That is true,


when you go to a science festival, there is a big one next month, you


will see large numbers of school chirp, and it is probably more girls


than boys going on. They identified the role models and the STEM


ambassadors. All science fair ambassadors should be women? Half of


them are, given the environment we are operating in is a great


achievement and we will do more. The other problem is careers, we have


tried to shoe horn people. There was no recognition for maternity, we


have changed that. Thank you very much. The front pages now:


That's it for tonight, I'm back tomorrow. We will leave you with the


new smartphone video game keeping the world. Flappy Bird, incredibly


addictive and insanely difficult to play for more than five seconds


apparently. A wet night where the rain isn't


needed it should get out of the way fairly smartly I think tomorrow.


Pretty quiet across much of Scotland and Northern Ireland. With


temperatures dipping low enough perhaps for a touch of ice


Download Subtitles