From Brussels with love

I suppose I will lose most of the sympathy I won from my last post about the working day of the average don, when I say that I am spending three days in Brussels – being an “evaluator” on a new scheme of European Research Council grants for young European scholars. This has meant interviewing 17 candidates over two days so far, and we are now about to discuss our recommendations.

Brussels is a much nicer city than you ever imagine (though not, I have to say the bit we’re in); the weather is glorious (though all we’re seeing of it is through a seventh floor window); and if, like me, you have a taste for mussels and chips, then the food counts as pretty good too.

That said, my experiences with the European Commission provide fodder for both the most loving Europhile and the most sceptical Eurosceptic.

Lets start with the Europhiles. I have to say that getting together with colleagues to award large research grants, Europe-wide, is something that would have been unthinkable in my subject only a decade ago. And the benefit is not only for those thirty-somethings who are going to be lucky (and clever) enough to get their projects funded.

We grey beards are getting a lot out of it too, I think. You hardly ever get to know people so well as when you are on a selection committee with them. In other circumstances, I might have met many of my fellow panellists in passing at conferences here, there and everywhere; I might have read their books or heard them lecture. But right now, I’m actually thrashing out different views of intellectual talent, academic priorities etc, with historians and archaeologists from France, Hungary, Italy, Poland and more.

I’m sure this is going to come across as uncharacteristically sentimental, but this kind of thing begins to give me a real feeling that we just might be able to carve out (and actually believe in) a European intellectual identity. It might even be fun.

Don’t worry, I’ve seen the other side of the Euro-machine too.  I mentioned in my last post that I still hadn’t got paid my travel expenses from when I came here in June. Well I still haven’t and it turns out that most of my fellow evaluators haven’t either. An organisation which takes more than four months to get you your reimbursement is hard to love.

And the new euro-building in which we’re meeting isn’t very lovable either: a new nine-storey block (you can see it above), bizarrely called “Covent Garden”. Tue, there is a bit of foliage on the ground floor – but otherwise, I’m afraid I’ve missed the reason for the name.

Maybe it’s because it isn’t quite finished yet, but the panoramic restaurant on the ninth floor only serves pre-packaged sandwiches (plus, to be fair, some good coffee). And the hundreds of computers available for us look good, but don’t live up to appearances. Their relationship to the internet reminds me of what it used to be like having a dial-up connection from home: you spend ten minutes getting the page you want to reveal itself, then after 30 seconds it’s gone again. We’re all wanting to do our email (it’s the middle of term, for heavens sake) and not one of us has actually got through.
So at the end of the day, we head back to the hotel and sit in the Reception (which is wi-fied), zombie-like – laptop in one hand, glass of wine (in my case, at least) in the other.

The conclusion may be unfair but is pretty obvious: if these guys can’t get their own infrastructure working, no wonder they’re having trouble with the Common Agricultural Policy.

Comments

[Antonia Mochan]

Thanks for raising these points. For both, the explanation lies pretty much on you being in at the start of something. The ERC is a completely new set-up, carrying out its own evaluation process, and a new way of administering EU research money so we have understandably had some teething problems.

On the first point, we were deluged with applications for the first ERC grant process, many more than expected. It was therefore necessary to increase the pool of experts (there were in fact about 1000 involved). This put pressure on the payment process. However, things are improving and considerable effort has been made to shorten payment times. I've been told that your payments from June have now been made and that those for your October visit will go very much more quickly

The Commission only took occupancy of the Covent Garden building (not our name choice, by the way!) in May 2007, which left very little time to put in all the necessary systems, by start of evaluations in June. Of course the priority for the IT people was the evaluation system, and that was the focus, rather than the external internet access. However, changes have been made, performance is already improving and we are working with the IT service of the Commission to have wifi installed, though I'm not sure I can put an exact date on that. So hopefully the next time you visit us, you'll see a definite improvement!

[Xjy]

My basic position on the EU is that Europe needs to be unified, but not in this way. A United Socialist States of Europe with clear responsibilities for democratically elected representatives at every level is what we need. As a single political body with a deal of regional, ethnic, linguistic autonomy.

Compare the unification of Germany (the 19th century one). A good thing for Germanic culture and national democratic aspirations that putrified through the Bismarckian/Prussian implementation and led straight to the First World War.

Ditto (mutatis mutandis) Italy, although the revolutionary aspects were more evident here.

"Europe" is so obviously structured around the two great inland seas (the Baltic and the Med) that any grand plan excluding North Africa is still-born. The wars with Carthage weren't to exclude Africa, after all...

(Could go on for a long time about this, but won't... :-) )

[Mary]

richard...well we at newnham believe that crick and watson rode roughshod over our rosalind, using her work to get their glory, m

[Richard]

As a non-scientist, I get dismayed by these stories, since I think that science journalism is often not very effective in communicating such issues to the rest of us.

At any rate, I have read and heard contradictory statements on this question presented as if "reasonable consensus" positions in the newspapers and on the radio during the time since Dr Watson's interview. I ended up with the impression that a) Dr Watson was just sounding off in the manner of a regular bigot in the pub, not communicating scientific results or insights; b) in fact IQ tests do show different average results for people with origins from different parts of the world; c) that point b) is unsurprising, since many social and economic factors affect IQ scores, e.g. nutrition, and people of different ethnic backgrounds tend also to come from different socio-economic backgrounds; d) it may also be the case that IQ tests are not accurately representing intelligence (as Paul suggests - and it seems to me a priori very unlikely that intelligence could be so easily tested...); e) when there are IQ differences which are perceived by some as not adequately explained under points c) and d) they are sometimes labelled "genetic" - i.e., genetic is used as a more impressive synonym for "don't know".

But I also heard and read other, contradictory statements. Those in the UK may have heard the "Moral Maze" team debating such issues on Radio 4 - it can be listened to from here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml

Mary - what is this about Rosalind Franklin?

Best wishes,
Richard

[Mary]

I dont usually post comments that are not in some way releantto the post concered, but I broke the rule with Paul's.
My view is that Watson has always been a dangerous character. I was brought up to regard what he and Crick did to Rosalind Franklin as quite atrocious.
This issue seems to me that there is no theoretical reason why (for example) blacks should not be cleverer than whites, women smarter than men -- or vice versa in both cases . In theory every postion must be countenanced... . but as i understand the evidence we have, theory or no theory, there is no suggestion at all of racial or gender differences in
IQ.

[paul potts]

Dear Mary

Dare I, or can I introduce a topic which your own site does nor mention?

I refer, writing as a University teacher in Africa, to a Dr. Prof Watson's alleged claim that Africans have a lower intelligence than whites. Nobel Prize, too, but his resignation from his academic post smells of the political rather than any retraction.

What scientific basis does this claim have? IQ tests? Well, I am well within the MENSA levels, but would not dream of joining that lot of nerds. I am much too bright for that. The IQ tests wee long ago discredited - no auditory capacity, linguistic skills in other languages, nothing about dealing with people, etc. More if you your readers are interested.

If not IQ tests, then what?

An intellectual engagement with Africans is strenuous and startling. You have to rethink quite a lot, if not everything. Dr Watson's disgrace is welcome, but the lack of discussion about how it happened is not. I rather suspect that the intellectual background of all this comes from Hitler's reading of Darwin in "Mein Kampf", a reading which still holds sway in most discussions of evolution.

Paul

Don't blog this if it gets in the way.

[anthony.alcock]

They may not want their own infrastructure to work. A pretty good reason for them not to work. And so charmingly donnish, don't you think ?

[Candadai Tirumalai]

I wonder if British classicists and Romanists in particular may not be more prepared to entertain the unity of Europe as a potentially positive force and less likely to be insular little Englanders. Those committed to the Englishness of the English seem to be sceptical of the idea of Europe; at least they used to be. Things may have moved on in Britain of course.
T.S. Eliot, who came to be more English than the English, was at the same time a believer in the cultural legacy of Europe, and had an abiding interest in the classical tradition.