1 iunie 2019
Inedit! Simpozion international de produse cosmetice si aromatizante, la Universitatea Tehnica din Iasi
Societatea Româna a Chimistilor Cosmetologi (SRCC), în colaborare cu Facultatea de Inginerie Chimica si Protectia Mediului "Cristofor Simionescu" a Universitatii Tehnice (TUIASI) "Gheorghe Asachi" din Iasi, organizeaza un eveniment important din aria educatiei si cercetarii stiintifice în domeniul produselor cosmetice si de îngrijire. Este vorba de al III-lea Simpozion international din Romania de produse cosmetice si aromatizante intitulat "Cosmetologia - Esenta de Frumos si Sanatate".
Manifestare stiintifica de traditie în domeniul produselor cosmetice, de îngrijire si chimico-casnice, singura de acest fel din România, reuneste de fiecare data participanti de profesii diverse: cercetatori, cadre didactice, chimisti, farmacisti, medici dermatologi, specialisti din industrie, marketing, legislatie, din tara si strainatate.
Toate editiile precedente s-au bucurat de aprecieri deosebite din partea acestora si au atras participanti tot mai numerosi. La editia din acest an si-au anuntat participarea peste 80 de persoane din universitati, centre de cercetare, companii de produse cosmetice, iar sesiunea stiintifica va cuprinde peste 50 de conferinte, prezentari orale si postere.
În seminariile organizate de unele firme de specialitate se vor dezbate cele mai noi probleme din domeniul producerii, testarii, legislatiei si învatamântului din Uniunea Europeana (UE).
"Ne bucuram sa constatam ca unele firme mai mici de produse cosmetice, care sunt la început de activitate, au dorit sa participe la evenimentul nostru, pentru a beneficia de cunostintele si experienta specialistilor din domeniu. Schimbul de idei asigurat de întâlnirile specialistilor cu tinerii cercetatori precum si informarea asupra celor mai noi realizari din domeniul cosmetologiei vor contribui la dezvoltarea unor noi directii de cercetare si la o colaborare mai strânsa între industrie, cercetare si învatamânt", au transmis oficialii TUIASI.
Deschiderea festiva a acestui eveniment va avea loc în Aula Universitatii Tehnice, "Carmen Sylva" din Copou, marti, 4 iunie 2019, orele 17:00. Lucrarile simpozionului se vor desfasura în Sala de Consiliu a Facultatii de Inginerie Chimica în zilele de 5 si 6 iunie 2019, între orele 9:00 si 18:30. Pe întreaga perioada a manifestarii, în holul Facultatii de Inginerie Chimica si Protectia Mediului va fi organizata o expozitie cu materiale informative, aparatura si produse cosmetice ale unor firme producatoare si distribuitoare .
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Sorry Jeremy, but ‘corporations on campus’ can help inspire students
Engagement with business can be vital for giving disadvantaged students a bright future, say Kirsty Palmer
Last week, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the election of Jo Grady as the new general secretary of the University and College Union with a tweet that sought to “get corporations out of the classroom and off campus”. A catchy phrase to be sure, but one that, for me at any rate, is a little too blunt in its analysis of the importance of the relationship between business and higher education in 2019.
I appreciate that the Labour leader might have been referring to the outsourcing of university services such as catering, security and cleaning, and the reasonable concerns that people hold about the impact of that. But the breadth of the phrase (even allowing for the difficulty in accommodating nuance on Twitter) might lead to unintended consequences.
As a director of student services with responsibility for careers advice and employability outcomes in a university where 40 per cent of students come from economically disadvantaged areas, I am dismayed to think that this line of thinking could reduce our ability to connect our students with future employers.
In this academic year alone, more than 100 “corporations” have attended events at our university, from careers fairs to industry forums to “day in the life…” talks that give students a sense of what it means to work in a particular industry. More than 2,000 students have heard what these companies have to say.
We have also invited guest speakers from industry into classrooms to explain how theory applies in the real world of work. This brings the curriculum to life, making it relevant, engaging and directly connected to economic and social growth. Would we really want to lose this just for the want of a bit of nuanced thinking?
Cardiff Metropolitan University recruits strongly from the local area, including the South Wales valleys – not areas well known in recent times for their rapid economic growth. Students from these areas have already overcome incredible barriers to reach university, and we are committed to giving them the boost they need to get over the next set of barriers into a great job on graduation. This is not, by the way, about that tired old cliché of “raising aspiration”: our students have no lack of aspiration and ambition. What they lack is information about their options. That’s where our relationship with business comes in.
Imagine that you have been brought up in a close-knit community where you walk to the same school your parents attended, parents who now work locally in low or medium-skill jobs. Almost your entire extended family is close at hand, along with all your friends. The only knowledge you might have about available careers refers to the ones you see in front of you: shop worker, factory staff, mechanic, teacher, or what you see on TV.
What if you think that none of those is right for you? What if you know you want to do something else but have no idea what that could be? Or you do know but have no idea how to get there? You’ve been told by teachers, the media, and every politician within two feet of a microphone in the past 20 years that getting to university is the key to getting a better job, so you work hard, get your grades and get a place. How would you feel if that university then failed to help navigate your way to achieving those aspirations?
In my own undergraduate days, as a modern languages student from a background not all that different from the one described above, I approached the careers service at my ancient and venerable institution, only to be directed towards a career in teaching. On rejecting their suggestion, I was asked why I was studying languages if I did not want to teach, as that was the best option for “a student like [me]”. Others on my course who had a more “suitable” backgrounds were directed towards a career in the foreign office, international banking or development work.
This is not how we do things any more. We work with our corporate partners to ensure that every student understands all their options and can make an informed choice. Businesses provide placements, advice on curriculum content, role models and mentors. They are an essential cog in the machine of ensuring our students get the maximum benefit from their university education. No student now would be dismissed as I was. This is an immeasurable improvement in the student experience.
So, corporations on campus? Yes please.
Publicație: The Times
Single-university cities: the strength of the only child?
There are plenty of pluses in being the only campus in town, new Australian v-c insists
A university that is the only campus in its city can occupy a sweet spot, supported by a cash-rich community but insulated from potentially divisive competition, according to a vice-chancellor.
Alex Zelinsky, who joined the University of Newcastle last November, said that the size of his host city – big enough to foster an independent spirit, but too small to warrant multiple campuses – was a factor in institutional performances rivalling those of Australia’s prestigious Group of Eight universities.
Newcastle’s recent achievements include ranking eighth in last year’s research assessment exercise in the number of narrow disciplines rated well above world standard. It was also one of just 11 Australian universities to earn research income of over A$100 million (£54 million) in 2017, the most recent year for which data exist, ranking ninth in the country on that measure.
Combined with nearby coastal regions and the Hunter Valley to the west, Newcastle boasts a population of about 650,000. The South Australian capital of Adelaide, with about twice as many people, has three public universities as well as the private Torrens University and a campus of the US’ Carnegie Mellon University.
Professor Zelinsky said that the “tight” competition among Adelaide universities was holding them back. “One of the reasons we’re successful is because we’re the only university here. We’re really seen to be part of the community. This unique position seems to be driving unique achievements,” he said.
Professor Zelinsky said that Newcastle’s location, about 100 miles north of much larger Sydney, meant it was not a commutable “bed town” for the state capital – unlike Sydney’s southern neighbour Wollongong, which is half as far away – and helped cultivate a sense of independence. Newcastle was also rich in resources from the nearby coalfields and the Hunter Valley agricultural and winemaking region.
The city’s transition from its industrial past, when it was one of Australia’s main steelmaking centres, had nurtured an entrepreneurial mindset reflected in high collaboration rates. Professor Zelinsky’s institution reaped far more federal Innovation Connections Grants last financial year than any other university, ranking second only to the government scientific agency the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
The vice-chancellor said that the university’s 1950s birth as an impoverished college of what is now UNSW Sydney, before gaining independence the following decade, had helped shape the institution’s character. “The community really loves this university. Our great hall was entirely built by donations from the community. Not graduates but community people,” he said.
Newcastle’s position as the only university in town has meant embracing a wide cross section of students. Professor Zelinsky said that half the 24,000-odd undergraduates were the first in their families to attend university, and about one-quarter had entered through enabling programmes rather than high school.
“They graduate and you can’t tell the difference,” he said. “Our employment statistics are as good as any university in the country. If you’re servicing a region, you can make a big difference.”
Publicație: The Times
US lawmakers seek balance in treatment of foreign scientists
After crackdowns on campus, members of Congress move to coordinate policy for universities
A cross-party effort in the US Congress is urging a more measured and consistent federal approach to foreign scientists that better weighs both the threat from espionage and the danger of academic isolationism.
The group, led by Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat representative from New Jersey, has proposed legislation that would give university and science leaders a regular forum with government officials to address security-related concerns in academia.
The idea, the lawmakers said, would bring a “standardisation of federal agency approaches to academic espionage while maintaining collaboration and a welcoming environment for foreign talent” at US universities.
University leaders have grown concerned after watching a crackdown by the FBI and other federal agencies against foreign thefts of intellectual property, expanded from corporate settings and government labs into academic arenas of basic scientific research that is meant to be freely shared.
Leading recent examples include both Emory University and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center firing foreign scientists. The two institutions have released few details of the cases, although both have suggested that they involve non-criminal violations such as unauthorised sharing of research data with colleagues and failing to disclose foreign sources of research funding.
US university leaders have repeatedly endorsed the idea that US national security must be protected, while warning that overly aggressive tactics in academia may grow counterproductive.
“We still believe strongly that the lines need to be clear – basic research needs to be shared for science to advance – and to not do that will be at our own peril,” said Tobin Smith, vice-president for policy at the Association of American Universities, which helped guide the work by Ms Sherrill and her colleagues.
It’s not clear, however, that either the Trump administration or Congress as a whole fully shares that sentiment, Mr Smith said.
The chief White House science adviser, Kelvin Droegemeier, said in a recent interview with Times Higher Education that US universities were justified in expelling foreign scientists who violated rules on sharing data. He demurred, however, on the question of whether US scientists – such as those participating in federal grant review panels who are understood to technically violate rules against sharing details of basic research work with their colleagues – should be subject to similarly harsh penalties.
“That’s an interesting question that needs to be looked at,” as unauthorised data sharing should not be allowed by anyone, regardless of nationality, Professor Droegemeier said. “Either case, they’re wrong,” he said.
Even the bipartisan six-lawmaker coalition assembled by Ms Sherrill hinted at wider divisions in Congress. She and her fellow Democrats issued statements in their bill announcement that noted the value of foreign students and scientists, while the group’s Republican members emphasised the need to prevent the theft of intellectual property.
However, some in Congress have proposed steps that many university leaders consider far more problematic. Those ideas include a bill by Jim Banks, a Republican representative from Indiana, that would assign the Department of Education – which lacks the relevant expertise – to oversee sensitive research projects on US campuses.
The Sherrill group is suggesting a single body of governmental and academic representatives, coordinated by the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Mr Smith said that such a unified body would greatly help in creating an environment for detailed policy evaluations.
Publicație: The Times
3 iunie 2019
Universitatea "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" din Iasi organizeaza o dezbatere publica privind modalitatea de alegere a rectorului institutiei
La fel ca celelalte mari universitati de stat din tara, in baza autonomiei academice si a prevederilor din Legea Educatiei Nationale (LEN), si Universitatea "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" (UAIC) din Iasi va organiza o dezbatere publica privind Referendumul pentru alegerea modalitatii de desemnare a Rectorului pentru mandatul 2020-2024.
"Joi, 13 iunie 2019, în intervalul orar 13:00 - 15:00, în Sala Senatului - Corp A al UAIC va avea loc o dezbatere publica privind Referendumul pentru alegerea modalitatii de desemnare a Rectorului pentru mandatul 2020-2024. Sunt invitati membrii comunitatii academice cu drept de vot «toate cadrele didactice si de cercetare titulare, angajate cu contract de munca pe perioada nedeterminata, din cadrul Universitatii «Alexandru Ioan Cuza» din Iasi si reprezentantii studentilor din Senatul universitar si Consiliile facultatilor»", au precizat oficialii de la "Cuza".
De reamintit ca, la alegerile din 2016, alegerile pentru pozitia de rector al Universitatii "Cuza" s-au derulat in baza votului liber al tuturor membrilor din comunitatea cuzista. A fost ales, in urma a doua tururi de scrutin, candidatul care a obtinut 50 la suta plus UNU din numarul voturilor valabil exprimate.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Professor who links vaccines to autism funded through university portal
Chris Exley, who says aluminium in vaccines may cause autism, has raised more than £22,000
A British professor who has claimed that aluminium in vaccines is linked to autism has raised more than £22,000 to support his work through a Keele University online donations portal, the Guardian can reveal.
Prof Chris Exley angered health experts for claiming that tiny amounts of aluminium in inactivated vaccines, such as the HPV and whooping cough inoculations, may cause “the more severe and disabling form of autism”.
In 2017, the professor of bioinorganic chemistry published a paper on aluminium found in the brain tissue of five autistic patients that has been shared tens of thousands of times by vaccine skeptics online – despite criticism from health experts over its lack of controls and small sample size.
The research was part-funded by a grant from the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, a US-based organisation that challenges vaccine safety.
A Freedom of Information Act request by the Guardian has found that Exley received £22,173.88 in donations since October 2015 to help support his work, ranging from £2 to £5,000. More than £11,000 of contributions were made between January and April 2019. The majority of donations are less than £100.
Exley told the Guardian: “[The money is used to] support basic running costs of my lab and are not associated with any specific project. This is the nature of a donation as compared to a grant.”
Exley is group leader of the Birchall Centre at Keele University, which researches the role of metals in biology and materials science. Keele University said it did not support his claims about links between aluminium in vaccines and autism, adding: “The university emphatically supports the NHS policy of vaccination by recognising the importance current vaccines play in protecting childhood and adult health in the UK and globally.”
In April, the crowdfunding site GoFundMe took down a campaign started by Exley’s supporters to help fund his research because it reportedly violated the company’s policy against promoting misinformation about vaccines. No funds from the GoFundMe campaign were ever received by the professor. Keele University reviewed its own funding arrangements for Exley and has since created a new donation system with “a higher degree of transparency”.
When asked about the appropriateness of the University of Keele funding portal for Exley’s research, Paul A Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he was not concerned about the nature of the funding for a study, but only with its scientific quality.
Offit added: “If someone raises a hypothesis, for example, a parent is concerned because their child has received an aluminium-containing vaccine and they’re worried it has caused their child developmental delay or an autoimmune syndrome, that’s a fair question to ask. And it’s an answerable question. The public health and academic community responds by answering that question.
“What matters is the strength and the internal consistency of the study, robustness and reproducibility of the data. Period.”
Offit cited a 2017 study that examined the relationship between the aluminium levels found in the blood and hair of children aged nine to 13 months, their immunisation history and their cognitive development, finding no relationship.
Exley’s paper on aluminium in the brain tissue of five autistic patients in 2017 has been shared more than 50,000 times on Facebook.
Prof Heidi J Larson, director of the Vaccine Confidence Project based at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said social media companies should partner with scientists to combat vaccine disinformation online.
“Social media companies have the expertise and access to adjust the algorithms to mitigate rather than amplify negative information, but identifying which content is inaccurate and potentially causing illness or death should be guided by health and scientific experts.
“The key issue is that the public health and scientific community needs to become more nimble and responsive and be far more present in the social media space. That’s where the public lives and we’re just not there in any compelling way.
In a statement, Keele University said: “Whilst we have processes to ensure that all university research is performed under strict ethical procedures, this does not necessarily mean that the personal views of academics when interpreting their research represent the views of the institution as a whole.”
Publicație : The Guardian
Jim Al-Khalili: if you just want to be educated, read a textbook
The Surrey professor and broadcaster explains how science communication can entertain and enlighten
Where science stories were once “an amusing aside” at the end of a news bulletin about “what these boffins have got up to”, today “science news is part of mainstream news, whether discoveries of new planets, space missions or the Large Hadron Collider”, observed Jim Al-Khalili.
For the professor of physics and the public understanding of science at the University of Surrey, this is evidence of a radical transformation in science communication, which, he argued, has had the UK at its forefront.
Today, Professor Al-Khalili told Times Higher Education, a researcher’s commitment to science communication was “not seen as a hindrance to career progression in the way that it used to and may still be in other countries”. Measures such as “the proportion of the population attending science talks or watching science documentaries” indicated that “Britain is probably a decade or so ahead of the game” and had much to teach other countries.
Professor Al-Khalili’s own career represents a striking example of how times had changed. In the mid-1990s, he explained, he was “halfway through his second postdoctoral fellowship and working as a temporary lecturer at Surrey”. When he began to “feel the pull towards getting involved in communicating science” alongside his research, he was clearly told that he should “leave it to others who weren’t as research-active as me”.
A quarter of a century on, Professor Al-Khalili remains an active researcher with a team of five PhD students, although his interests have shifted from nuclear physics to quantum biology. But he is also an extremely well-known broadcaster, who has presented programmes on electricity, gravity, nuclear power, The Science of Dr Who and the history of science, including the largely untold story of Science and Islam in the Middle Ages.
While some scientists were mainly interested in communicating their own research, he explained, he had always wanted to range far more widely, in order to “get across how the scientific method works” and to help promote the kind of “scientifically literate society” we urgently need in an era of tabloid sensationalism and fake news.
In The Life Scientific, the popular BBC Radio 4 series he has presented for more than seven years, he actually “find[s] it easier to have a conversation with a scientist who is very far from my field, an entomologist or a geologist or a psychologist, and to ask the questions I think the listeners would want to ask. If I’m talking to another physicist, I have to make a conscious effort to zoom out and make sure we don’t get into a technical chat among chums.”
Nowadays, in Professor Al-Khalili’s view, there was much wider acceptance of the idea that public engagement was “not a lower-grade activity” for scientists or just a distraction from their “proper job” of research. “Vice-chancellors see the value of it,” he claimed, not least in raising the profile of their institutions, while “young researchers see it as cool to get involved”. The main barriers came from “heads of departments, labs and research groups, where the pressure of funding may be paramount…It’s in the middle ground that things have to change.”
Although public engagement had its irritations, Professor Al-Khalili was philosophical about them. Broadcasters just had to accept that “people will comment on whether you’ve put on weight, what your hair’s like, whether a jacket suits you or your accent”. Though he seldom got criticism from fellow scientists, he had to put up with occasional pedantic comments from historians of science: “If you say ‘Humphry Davy was a great scientist’, someone will point out that technically the word ‘scientist’ wasn’t invented until the 1830s, so he wasn’t a scientist, he was a natural philosopher.” His response to such nit-picking was: “This is a TV documentary. It’s meant to enlighten and entertain. If you want just to be educated, go and read a textbook.”
Asked about his advice for others, Professor Al-Khalili said that he always told students they had to choose “between being a science communicator and a scientist who communicates. If you want to [be the latter], go on to postgraduate study, build up your credibility in a particular field, so you really understand what it’s like to do science. Then gradually build up your portfolio of science communication.
“My only other advice is to do what I did. If I had listened to the advice of people who were more experienced than me, who warned me off science communication, I wouldn’t be where I am today. Follow your heart – though that’s not a very scientific thing to say.”
Publicație : The Times
Business university title approved ‘in error’
European University of Business claims that it has university status
An east London-based private provider has gained permission to call itself a university after Companies House approved the nomenclature in error, with the government claiming that it had “no record” of clearing the “specific name” used.
The confusion over the status of the European University of Business has raised questions about the Department for Education’s processes for regulating university title and use of the word “university”, the gold standard of UK higher education regarded as key to the reputation of the sector.
Dominic Palmer-Brown, EUB’s vice-chancellor and a former pro vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, said that this institution “has university status, having followed formal procedures, which took more than a year, to obtain registration with Companies House as a university, including non-objection for the use of that title from DfE”.
Companies House gave permission for the company previously known as EUOB Ltd to change its name to the European University of Business in December 2018, documents show.
While institutions have traditionally been required to secure degree-awarding powers as a precondition to securing university title, the DfE has recently begun allowing use of the word to new providers – whom it is seeking to encourage to enter the sector – without such powers.
The traditional route to university title is protected under higher education legislation. However, Times Higher Education has previously reported that the DfE had granted permission under different legislation – the Company Limited Liability, Partnership and Business Names (Sensitive Words) and Expressions Regulations 2014 – for both Gary Neville’s University Academy 92 and the University Campus of Football Business to use the word “university” in their names.
The name change for the EUB is an even more significant development, as the institution is not using any modifying word such as “academy” in conjunction with “university”.
EUB did not respond to queries from THE on whether it has secured degree-awarding powers. The institution, based in Forest Gate, lists its chancellor as Sir Graeme Davies, the former vice-chancellor of the universities of Glasgow, Liverpool and London, and the ex-chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
A DfE spokeswoman said: “University is a sensitive word that is protected in legislation in England. Any institution that wants to register a business name that includes the word ‘university’ with Companies House must first provide evidence that the responsible department does not object.
“There is no record of this formal clearance ever being given to any institution to use the specific name ‘European University of Business’. We work closely with Companies House and Prospects to prevent misuse of the term ‘university’.”
A Companies House spokesman said: “I can confirm that Companies House accepted the word university in this name in error. We are investigating this matter and will contact the company.”
Paul Cottrell, acting general secretary of the University and College Union, said: “University title has always been an important indicator of quality for students, so the government and the regulator must be vigilant in policing its use.”
Publicație : The Times
More universities using peer observation to assess teaching
Reflecting concern about validity of student evaluations, Australian institutions following North American and European move towards greater use of observations
Australian universities are increasingly formalising peer observation of teaching as a tool that can be used to assess academics in promotion and performance reviews.
The trend is being driven by widespread dissatisfaction with student evaluations and a desire for better evidence about what constitutes good teaching. But it will have to overcome an inherent contradiction, with research suggesting that using reviews for formal evaluation can undermine the collegial spirit that gives peer observation – also known as peer review of teaching (PRT) – its strength.
Chi Baik, an associate professor in higher education at the University of Melbourne, said that “summative” PRT schemes – designed for recognition rather than just reciprocal improvement – required comprehensive consultation and careful structuring. “The criteria the reviewers use to write their reports have to be strongly evidence-based,” she said.
“It can’t be just a personal feel for what makes good teaching. The criteria have to come out of research literature around effective teaching practices.”
Dr Baik is overseeing a pilot of formal PRT in the university’s medicine and business faculties. The university has appointed a 41-strong “college of reviewers” to conduct the voluntary assessments.
The hope is that the scheme will be rolled out throughout the university in 2020, with academics able to have their teaching reviewed once every three years or so – and after 12 months if they attract negative assessments. But Dr Baik stressed that a university-wide scheme was far from a done deal.
“It really depends on this pilot,” she said. “We could find that it’s too difficult or there’s too much apprehension, in which case we’ll have to rethink it. Or we could find that it’s worked really well.”
She said the initiative had been driven by staff rather than the university administration. “PRT, in the less formal sense, has been around for decades,” she said. “Academics really value it for personal improvement, but they can’t use the report or feedback for anything else. They can’t forward it as evidence of teaching quality when they go for promotion or confirmation.”
Other Australian universities including UNSW Sydney, Flinders University, Charles Sturt University and the University of Tasmania facilitate summative PRT as well as the less high-stakes version. The practice is more established in North America and Europe.
The University of Liverpool, for example, expects all teaching academics to be reviewed every two years. “I sense a growing focus on it because of the increased attention to quality of teaching,” Dr Baik said.
Australian developments in PRT – including an overview of the Melbourne pilot and a literature review of Australian research findings – were being presented at the university’s teaching and learning conference on 5 June.
The literature review found that PRT was most effective if it was voluntary. But the benefits were hard to quantify, with a lack of hard data around its impacts on learning exacerbated by ambiguous definitions of the practice.
Dr Baik said that adequate resourcing for PRT – particularly the reviewers, who incurred the bulk of the workload – would be critical to its formal expansion. She said university leaders needed to champion it in a practical as well as a verbal sense.
Publicație : The Times
|
