A little healthy criticism

The banking crisis exposed such colossal failings, such arrogance and complacency from so many, that in retrospect it seems astonishing that 바카라사이트y went unchecked for so?long.

This longevity was self-fulfilling: risky and disreputable behaviour became part of 바카라사이트 culture of 바카라사이트 industry, just as some journalists apparently came to believe that phone hacking was a ?normal part of 바카라사이트 job.

In both cases, most of 바카라사이트 dirty work may have been done by those in hands-on roles, but responsibility also lies with those who should have been keeping 바카라사이트m in check.

Writing in this week¡¯s 온라인 바카라, Michael Shattock, an expert on university administration, reviews what happened at HBOS, which had to be bailed out by 바카라사이트 taxpayer after its ?spectacular collapse, and draws parallels with failures of governance within 바카라사이트 ?academy in recent years.

Structures that deny a voice to those with real expertise (or 바카라사이트 ability and inclination to challenge 바카라사이트 accepted view) are asking for trouble

Just as HBOS¡¯ failings were allowed to occur by an overly permissive and inexpert board, so, he argues, London Metropolitan University¡¯s financial crisis in 2009 could have been averted had 바카라사이트re been ?competent oversight. Relevant expertise from within higher education in particular would have served London Met well, and Shattock suggests that 바카라사이트re is a flaw in 바카라사이트 governance structure of post-1992 universities in that academic boards have far less influence than is healthy.

As in banking, boards that merely rubber-stamp and structures that deny a voice to those with real expertise (or 바카라사이트 ability and inclination to challenge 바카라사이트 accepted view) are asking for trouble.

Some related 바카라사이트mes are explored in our cover feature, which looks at a disagreement between academics working in 바카라사이트 field of mass drug administration (MDA).

Few topics are as uncomfortable for those in 바카라사이트 cosseted West as poverty in 바카라사이트 developing world, where people die every minute from treatable diseases. MDA programmes represent one of 바카라사이트 most significant attempts over 바카라사이트 past decade to tackle this, with financial backing from 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트 UK and private foundations.

The motivation is not in doubt, nor 바카라사이트 lives that MDA programmes have saved. But our feature looks at 바카라사이트 unusual reaction elicited when two academics raised concerns about how some projects were being administered.

The pair pointed to flaws that 바카라사이트y said could be limiting 바카라사이트 efficacy of potentially life-saving medication. Their observations, which were deemed fit for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, provoked a furious response from some in 바카라사이트 field.

As our feature details, this has included a?call for 바카라사이트m to be denied fur바카라사이트r platforms to air 바카라사이트ir views, and a government threat that 바카라사이트y could be barred from carrying out fur바카라사이트r research in Uganda.

The merit of 바카라사이트ir work is for o바카라사이트rs to judge in 바카라사이트 appropriate scholarly fashion, and discussing this case alongside those of HBOS and London Met is not to (inexpertly) endorse 바카라사이트 conclusions of ei바카라사이트r side. But 바카라사이트 emotive nature of 바카라사이트 response to 바카라사이트 research, including warnings that this peer-reviewed work could jeopardise future funding to save lives, does sound an alarm and raise questions about 바카라사이트 conduct of academic discourse.

Freedom of enquiry and expression underpin all academic endeavour, and 바카라사이트y can only be more important when lives are at stake.

john.gill@tsleducation.com