Save PEAK

John Gillies

2011-04-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

March 31^st 2011

Professor Nick Foskett

Vice Chancellor

Keele University

Staffordshire

ST5 5BG

Dear Professor Foskett,

RE Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele

As an alumnus of the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele (MA Distinction Medical Ethics and Law 2003), I was very pleased to see that the proposal to close the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele was withdrawn last week. I have been a general practitioner for 25 years and undertook the course on a part time basis in 2001 on a recommendation from two other doctors and a nurse. I found the standard of teaching high and subsequently went on to publish three articles in British Journal of General Practice with my tutor Mark Sheehan as well as an occasional paper for the Royal College of General Practitioners on the philosophy of general practice.

I subsequently used this qualification to develop ethics teaching for under-graduates at the University of Edinburgh and post-graduate GP trainees over the past 7 years. I am now involved with helping RCGP UK to develop a framework for ethical commissioning. I believe that this will contribute to establishing the highest ethical standards for the major changes proposed in the NHS in England over the next 2 years.

In summary, without the skills and knowledge that I acquired at my time at Keele and the subsequent networking which this has enabled, none of this would have been possible. I believe that it also helps me bring a dimension of ethical thinking to my tenure as chair of RCGP Scotland.

I do hope that the plan to close the centre has been completely withdrawn.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Dr John Gillies MA, FRCGP, FRCPE

Chair

RCGP Scotland

Withdrawal of closure proposals!

2011-03-24T02:06:00.000-07:00

We are delighted to announce that due to substantial discussions over the last two days the proposals to close PEAK (the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele University) have been withdrawn.

This decision was accepted and endorsed at today's meeting of Keele University's Senate.

This means that existing and prospective students need not be concerned about their studies.

PEAK remains committed to teaching and research excellence - and is actively recruiting for next year's intake to our courses.

However, we are required to produce a business plan outlining ways to ensure the required cost savings over the next few weeks. This means that we may need to reactivate this campaign, but for now, we are focusing on positive developments for the future.

We would like to thank all of our friends and colleagues from across the world for their support. We would particularly like to thank all those that took the time to write letters of support that went to our VC, DVC and Dean.

It was very important to our case that they considered our international reputation and you all made this obvious in the strongest terms.

This has been a difficult week (to say the least) for all of us and our families. However, your solidarity and support has really helped us to put the evidence and arguments forward.

This is a remarkable victory in a relatively short period of time - and it is due to you all.

Peter Neyroud

2011-03-23T22:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I know that this will not be the only letter that you receive on this subject, but I wanted to add my own voice to others who will be raising concerns about the potential loss of the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele. I missed your own input at the seminar on Ethics in Policing in the Autumn, but I know that you shared your own pride, on behalf of Keele, in the centre of excellence that PEAK provides. You were right to do so and the seminar on ethics in policing was a major first for the UK police service, which has frankly been slow to take ethics to its core.

I know that you will have some extremely difficult choices to make about where and how to make cuts. Having just stepped out of my role at the head of the National Policing Improvement Agency I know that you are not alone in having to make cuts on a scale that few of us in the public service have experienced.

One of the obvious ways of judging areas for cuts is to reflect on whether they are likely to be critical for the future. I have have just completed a Review of Police Leadership and Training for the Home Secretary. The final report will present a radically different view of police training and leadership development with ethics as one of the strands given a much higher profile and a new, central role for Higher Education. It is clearly up to Keele University to decide whether it wants to continue to compete for business in this area, but I would judge that the Centre has just made a timely investment of effort in an area where ethics are about to become central to a new professionalism. I think you would be premature to decide to close the Centre before you have had a chance to reassess the landscape in the light of the Review. Moreover, I judge that policing will not be the only professional area that will find a renewed focus on ethics attractive in the new era of localism and distributed power.

It is clearly your choice. If there is anything that I can do personally to assist your choice in due course, then please get back to me.

Peter

Peter Neyroud QPM

Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Criminology,
Cambridge University, CB3 9DA

General Editor, Policing: a Journal of Policy and Practice
www.policingoxfordjournals.org

Peter Neyroud Research Associates Limited
Registered Company no. 7321631

Past and present External Examiners

2011-03-23T02:58:00.000-07:00

Prof. Nick Foskett

Vice-Chancellor, Keele University

Keele, Staffordshire

ST5 5BG

22^nd March 2011

Threatened Closure of PEAK

Letter from External Examiners

Dear Prof. Foskett

cc. Prof. David Shepherd

Prof. Rama Thirunamachandran

We hope you are well.

We write in response to the news that PEAK is threatened with closure, with the prospect that many if not all current PEAK academics will lose their jobs.

In our view this proposal is short-sighted and extremely misguided. We are acutely aware of the financial difficulties surrounding Keele and the challenges facing all members of the UK HE sector. But, for a variety of reasons we believe that your proposed solution is the wrong one.

First, let us comment on the academic standing of PEAK’s programmes. In short, we above all other people can vouch for their excellence. The teaching and assessment exhibited on their courses is outstanding. Furthermore, the range of ideas that are discussed is impressive and inspirational. They are everything a university should aim for, maintain, and foster.

We can also, as fellow researchers, comment on the value of the research done at Keele. This is, in our view, of first-rate importance. PEAK constitutes one of the largest concentrations of medical ethics expertise in Europe, and certainly the largest in the UK. Again, PEAK is something very special that any University should be aiming to maintain, not close. We also add that the research undertaken within PEAK is of great benefit outside of academia and that the impact of the Centre is huge. In our view there is no reason to think that PEAK could not return a very good REF submission.

Let us also comment on the financial figures that are in the public domain. We are aware that a number of people in other letters to you have challenged these figures and the modelling that Keele has undertaken. Some of us share these concerns very strongly. Here as a group we ask only that the University satisfy itself that these figures are correct. We are aware of the fact that before it was integrated into the Law School, PEAK was seemingly in the black. After a small amount of time it is now seemingly heavily in the red. We would ask you to investigate these figures carefully to make sure that you are not basing a decision on wrong numbers. Aside from the other points above, it would be imprudent for a University to disband an activity that was either making money or had the potential to make money.

Lastly, although we focus in this letter on PEAK, we have equally strong concerns regarding the threatened closure of the Philosophy Department. We urge you to reconsider your proposals and to find a different solution. If both departments close, then Keele University will lose all connection with the subject of Philosophy. Not only is this one of the central subjects that any decent modern university should offer, your decision will have special symbolic importance for Keele, founded as it was by a philosopher. The reputation of your institution will suffer irrevocably if both Philosophy and PEAK are closed.

We are aware that you have been receiving many letters from concerned parties over the past few days, and some of us have already seen the standard response that has been drafted. We realise that you are all very busy, but we hope that you take the time not just to read our letter, but to reply to us personally.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Simon Kirchin

Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Kent

President of The British Society for Ethical Theory

PEAK External Examiner, 2004-2007

s.t.kirchin@kent.ac.uk

and on behalf of the following past and present external examiners:

Bob Brecher (Brighton) - R.Brecher@brighton.ac.uk

Gideon Calder (University of Wales/Newport) - gideon.calder@newport.ac.uk

Phil Cole (University of Wales/Newport) - phillip.cole@newport.ac.uk

Alan Cribb (KCL) - alan.cribb@kcl.ac.uk

Heather Draper (Birmingham) - h.j.a.draper@bham.ac.uk

Soren Holm (Manchester) - soren.holm@man.ac.uk

Emily Jackson (LSE) - e.jackson@lse.ac.uk

Jose Miola (Leicester) - jose.miola@leicester.ac.uk

Neil Manson (Lancaster) - n.manson@lancaster.ac.uk

Therese Murphy (Nottingham) - therese.murphy@nottingham.ac.uk

Ainsley Newson (Bristol) - Ainsley.Newson@bristol.ac.uk

David Oderberg (Reading) - d.s.oderberg@reading.ac.uk

Marcel Verweij (Utrecht) - m.f.verweij@uu.nl

John Harrington

2011-03-22T06:41:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett

It is with some dismay that I have learned of the decision of Keele University to close its centre for professional ethics.

PEAK has a well deserved reputation as a centre of international excellence in this field. Its scholarship is first rate, covering a range of both traditional and developing areas in ethics. Its teaching programmes are an outstanding example of interchange between the academy and practice.

PEAK makes a genuine, socially valuable contribution to critical reflection and humane practice in the health services and other areas. Given the major changes proposed for the NHS, this contribution becomes ever more important to patients, professionals and to all citizens.

Until recently I was Director of the Institute of Medicine, Law and Bioethics at the University of Liverpool. In developing our teaching and research programmes we looked to Keele as a role model given its status as one of the top three or four centres of excellence in professional ethics.

In particular through its close collaboration with the Law Department, PEAK has played a considerable role in shaping the development of my own discipline of medical law, both in terms of scholarship and as regards the creation of law by way of statute or common law decision.

I urge you strongly to reconsider this decision and to secure Keele's reputation for scholarship and social impact.

Yours sincerely


John Harrington
Professor of Law
University of Liverpool

The Society for Applied Philosophy

2011-03-21T16:17:00.000-07:00

The Society for Applied Philosophy serves to promote and support the discipline and activity of applied philosophy both in the UK and internationally. The Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele is home to a number of applied philosophers of high international reputation, and produces a great deal of important research... in the area of applied ethics (though the failure to submit the unit in the last RAE may mean that the unit's research profile has not fully registered with Keele's management).
Given the Centre’s international reputation and importance we are at a loss to make sense of the proposed closure of this internationally important academic unit. The proposal seems even more perplexing at a time in the UK when universities are required to show “impact”: where academic research has a reach and influence beyond the academy. The Centre for Professional Ethics exhibits exactly this kind of impact, with its research being relevant to, and used by, a broad constituency including policy makers and professional bodies.
We, the office holders and executive committee of the Society for Applied Philosophy, strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed closure.
Signed:
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (House of Lords/President of Society)
Prof. David Archard (Lancaster University/Hon. Chair)
Dr Neil C. Manson (Lancaster University/Hon. Treasurer)
Dr Kimberley Brownlee (Manchester University/Hon. Secretary)
Prof. Tom Sorell (Birmingham University/Exec Committee)
Prof. Chris Megone (Leeds University/Exec Committee)
Prof. Ingmar Persson (Gothenburg University/Exec Committee)
Prof. Rosamund Scott (King's College London/Exec Committee)
Prof. Hugh LaFollette (South Florida/Exec Committee)
Dr Lorella Terzi (Roehampton/Exec Committee)
Dr Suzanne Uniacke (Hull/Exec Committee)
Mr Jon Cameron (Aberdeen/Exec Committee)

Ross Upshur

2011-03-21T14:54:00.000-07:00

Professor Nick Foskett

Vice-Chancellor

Keele University

Re: Proposed closure of PEAK and the Department of Philosophy at Keele University

Dear Professor Foskett:

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed closure of PEAK and the Department of Philosophy at Keele University. You have no doubt been inundated by letters opposing this course of action. Indeed, I have read a number of them. It must be encouraging as an academic leader to see the high regard the global community holds for these academic units. I will join the chorus of voices that share that high regard. PEAK, in particular is a highly regarded unit in the area of applied ethics, and a world leader and innovator in the important emerging field of public health ethics.

However, my concerns run deeper than simply the potential loss of an academic unit universally recognized in the field for the excellence of its teaching and research. When I examined the Strategic Map of the University, I found the following notable points.

The stated vision of the university is “To build upon Keele’s founding value of ‘the pursuit of truth in the company of friends’: we are a diverse, inclusive and professional academic community that respects individuals and enables them to strive for success in order to contribute positively and sustainably to the local region, wider society and the national economy.” I find it difficult to envision the pursuit of truth in an academic community that no longer has a philosophy department. Philosophy is the discipline that is foremost in the commitment to the pursuit of truth.

Further on I read in the strategic aims and objectives that Keele strives to “develop high quality graduates who demonstrate intellectual flexibility and relevant experience and skills, including employability and global citizenship skills.” Again, philosophy is central to the development of intellectual flexibility. Still further on I find that Keele seeks to “foster innovation in a developing collaborative multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research environment, including the development of focused University-wide themes in Sustainability and Ageing linked to the emerging regeneration theme.” These laudable aspirations are well exemplified in the areas of professional ethics, which is amongst the most collaborative and interdisciplinary of academic endeavours. As someone active in the field of aging research, the most substantial challenges facing our health systems and society at large are ethical challenges. Your institution will be significantly disadvantaged in understanding and contributing to this discourse if well trained ethicists are not in your academic community.

I recognize that academic institutions face serious fiscal issues. We are facing similar circumstances in Canada. In all the letters that I have seen circulating about the issues facing Keele, few have directed attention to the upstream causes of the current fiscal difficulties. It is ironic that it is the type of reasoning (economic rationality of a particular form) that led to the eventual collapse of economies that is now being employed to justify the closure of academic units. Perhaps if thinking of a different sort prevailed, such draconian measures would not be necessary.

On a personal note, I studied philosophy before I entered medicine. I sincerely believe that no academic discipline better trains a student for rigorous inquiry. The type of critical thinking skills instilled and cultivated by philosophy are germane to a wide range of professions. Employability is enhanced by these skills, even if they do not show up as direct economic benefits. As an academic physician I have been deeply involved in bioethics. The issues raised in bioethics are of immense importance to modern life as they examine and evaluate questions of fundamental human significance.

A decision to close PEAK and the Department of Philosophy would be a disservice to current and future students attending Keele. It would lead to irreparable intellectual disadvantage. Furthermore, the closure of PEAK and the Department of Philosophy will impair the university’s ability to achieve its stated vision, mission and strategic aims and objectives. The short term financial relief is not worth the substantial potential harm to the academic vitality of the institution. I sincerely hope that this decision is reconsidered.

I thank you for your time and attention to this letter.

Sincere best wishes,

Ross E.G. Upshur, BA(Hons), MA, MD, MSc, CCFP, FRCPC

Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics

Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and

Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto

Canada Research Chair in Primary Care Research

Director, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Bioethics

PEAK Response to Senate Document

2011-03-21T14:36:00.000-07:00

PEAK has produced a response to the Senate document. Read it here: PEAK (School of Law) Briefing Document for Senators.

Phillip Cole

2011-03-21T09:45:00.001-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am writing to you concerning the proposed closure of the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele (PEAK), and the proposed closure of the Philosophy programme.

I am external examiner on two of the MA programmes at the Centre, the Ethics of Policing and the Ethics of Social Welfare. I am also a former student at Keele University, having gained my PhD in Philosophy there.

With reference to PEAK, from my experience as external examiner on these courses, it appears to me that in PEAK you have a unique institution which is reaching out to the local community and having a significant impact upon it, and and in doing so giving the University a distinct and valuable role. The students on the programmes receive teaching of the highest standards, and as a result are producing work that will have a significant impact on their practices.

I cannot comment on the financial background, but would make the point that PEAK offers a valuable contribution to the university's reputation and position in the local community that cannot be measured in financial terms. To discard it would significantly reduce the University as an institution, even though it may save you financial costs.

At the international level, PEAK has a world-wide reputation for high quality research, and its members are highly respected in the academic community. Again, to discard it would be a severe blow to the standing of Keele as a university.

On the proposed closure of the Philosophy programme, again I cannot comment on the financial background, but what attracted me to work as an external examiner at Keele -- apart from my connection with the Philosophy programme -- was Keele's own history as an institution and the vision behind it. As you well know, Lord Lindsay's original vision was inspired by the need to respond to the catastrophe's of Fascism and the Second World War, which he saw as, partly, caused by a failure of communication between educated people. The Second World War saw the perversion of scientific knowledge and the growth of unethical political systems, and the idea behind Keele was to counter these developments by offering a balance of specialist expertise with a wider understanding of ethics and culture.

I quote Lord Lindsay straight from your own alumni website: "If we are going to try and keep a democratic country and maintain understanding of one another, we have to send out people from our universities who can do the technical stuff and who at the same time have an understanding of political and social problems and of the values that lie behind them". At my induction as an external examiner, that vision was presented to me as still an essential part of Keele's meaning as an institution, and I found that inspiring and moving.

It seems to me that Philosophy is an essential part of that original vision, and PEAK itself expresses it most fully. To close these programmes would be extremely damaging to Lord Linday's founding idea, and to the very idea of Keele as a unique educational institution.

I would urge you to avoid the closure of these programmes.

yours sincerely,

Phillip Cole

Professor of Applied Philosophy

School of Health and Social Sciences

University of Wales, Newport

Professor P.A.J. Waddington

2011-03-21T09:36:00.001-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,
I was saddened and perplexed to learn of the proposed closure of the Centre for Professional Ethics and Philosophy. I can readily appreciate the severe budgetary difficulties that Keele is facing and the need to make unpalatable decisions — they are endemic across the sector. On the other hand, ‘professional ethics’ is ...not only an arena in which academic knowledge can make a direct contribution, but it seems to me to be a field of inquiry that is destined to grow as more occupations strive to attain professional standing and are obliged to confront the insatiable public appetite for the highest ethical standards. As technology develops, so too acute ethical issues seem inevitably to emerge.
Keele has been a University at the leading edge of this academic subject. I’m surprised that such a ‘growth subject’ is not regarded as an opportunity to be grasped rather than a financial burden to be cast aside.

P.A.J. Waddington

Professor of Social Policy
Hon. Director, Central Institute for the Study of Public Protection
University of Wolverhampton

Letter from Wellcome Clinical Fellow

2011-03-21T06:50:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I was awarded a Clinical Fellowship in Biomedical Ethics from the Wellcome Trust in 2010 to conduct postgraduate research at the Centre for Professional Ethics (PEAK). As part of my application, external peer reviews of my research proposal were sought from national and international experts. They all described Keele as an ideal location for bioethical work and indeed commented on the respect and esteem with which the department’s research output and staff are held generally. As you may well know, two of the four fellowships which have been awarded since the Wellcome scheme started in 2009 have been to this institution, a remarkable achievement. I therefore have no doubt that PEAK played a major part in the success of my application and would benefit from such funding in the future. We all understand the need to make hard decisions in tough times. However, short-term gains have to be balanced against long-term goals and the decision-making process be as fair and transparent as possible.

As other people have said, the closure of PEAK could irrevocably damage the university’s reputation and I would hasten to add also eradicate a fantastic potential source of revenue in future years. As a doctor in the NHS, I am aware of a great need and desire amongst my colleagues for good quality training courses which can contribute to CPD (Continuing Professional Development). The current annual appraisal system and the introduction of revalidation next year means that staff are always on the lookout for interesting courses to attend. This is a relatively untapped market that PEAK is in a very fortuitous position to pursue.

I urge you to firstly, open dialogue with the relevant staff to determine if a less drastic resolution can be identified and secondly, take a long-range perspective and recognise the potential that PEAK offers both intellectually and financially.

Many Thanks

Dr Joanne Gordon (Wellcome Trust Clinical Fellow)

Richard Ashcroft

2011-03-21T04:55:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett

I am writing to record my surprise and dismay at proposals to close the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele (PEAK), and to ask you to reconsider most carefully.

This Centre is arguably the leading centre for applied and practical ethics in the United Kingdom, with an outstanding international reputation. Only the centres at Oxford and Manchester come close. Neither of those centres have either the breadth of research areas within applied ethics, or the reputation for disinterested and open-minded scholarship, for which PEAK is famous. And neither of those centres have the track record of research funding, publication in volume and quality, training of healthcare professionals and philosophers at Master’s level, innovation in pedagogy and programme design, or concentration of young and mid-career scholars of quality and ambition.

All of this has been achieved with considerable effort, very largely due to external funding – unlike almost any other philosophy-based research group in the UK – and requiring enormous effort, commitment and flexibility on the part of its staff. The energy and sacrifices they have made in terms of travelling the country bringing ethics education and training to users, instead of expecting the users to come to them, has been second to none, and must have imposed considerable strain on staff and their family lives over the years.

To consider closing the Centre now shows that the University sets all of this quality, energy, and loyalty at practically nothing. It communicates a grim message to your other staff, who must by now be wondering what loyalty they can expect from their employer, and what promises they can actually take at face value. If a Centre which has done everything asked of it by the University, and more, can still face closure, then it is a sad day for Keele, and the university sector in the United Kingdom.

I must also record that to close this Centre would be disastrous for the field of applied ethics in the United Kingdom. But I do not expect that argument to hold any great interest for you, as it is your university’s interests which are your concern, quite properly.

Your sincerely

Richard Ashcroft

Professor of Bioethics

Queen Mary, University of London
School of Law

Martin Wilkinson

2011-03-21T01:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am writing to express my dismay at the proposal to close the Centre for
Professional Ethics (PEAK). I was a Leverhulme Visiting Professor at PEAK
in the second half of last year. PEAK is a splendid centre. It has
talented, dedicated, hard-working academics who collectively form a lively
critical mass. Such a critical mass is unusual; academics who do not have
the good fortune to work in such an environment would give a great deal to
be surrounded by such an intellectual buzz. The Centre is unusual in
another way: it is particularly good at linking with the professions,
thanks to its teaching and service, and with disciplines besides applied
ethics. Such genuine openness to other disciplines is rare.

PEAK has enormous respect in the UK and overseas (as I am testifying). It
is an aspect of Keele University that stands out internationally. We can
all remember -- years after the events -- the shortsighted closures of
highly-respected well-functioning units in British universities. It would
damage Keele's reputation considerably if PEAK's closure were to proceed.
Please reconsider.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Wilkinson MA DPhil (Oxon)
Department of Political Studies
University of Auckland

Catherine Womack

2011-03-20T16:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Dr. Foskett,

I am writing to express my serious concern about the proposed closing of the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele University. As an American public health ethicist who also has worked in university administration, I am very sympathetic to the difficult choices you are facing, and the pressures on you from forces outside of your university. Here in Massachusetts, we are constantly underfunded and are facing massive cuts in our state budgets that have strong effects on higher education.

However, I think that closing the Centre for Professional Ethics is a serious mistake, and that such an action will hurt not only the students, faculty and staff directly involved, but also your university, the British university system, and indeed the British government. Others have written to address in detail the excellent work coming out of the Centre, the effects it has on numerous fields, and its world-class status as a place for innovative work. I concur; I have worked with numerous scholars of the Centre, and it is clear that at every international conference (most recently the World Congress of Bioethics in Singapore in July 2010), Keele's name is familiar to everyone because of the work done by talented and well-trained researchers at the Centre.

However, the Centre is also a place where crucial ideas for solving major policy and political problems are developed. Especially in the light of the global financial crisis, in particular in light of out-of-countrol spending in health care, you (and we in the US) need the work of these people to help address the seeming-intractable problems that are endangering the lives and well-being of the British people. I know I speak in dramatic terms, but it is true that bold solutions need unfettered and brilliant thinkers, working together in a climate of intellectual cross-pollination. Keele is one of the few places where that happens.

I know you have to make cuts in your budget-- my appeal to you is that you look for some ways to keep the Centre intact. Talk to those at the Centre; enlist their input. They will help you come up with some solutions that administration may not have thought of. I have been in meetings where this has happened, and I am sure you have, too.

I appreciate your time and attention to this email, and I urge you to work with Centre staff to avoid its closure. I wish you good luck in navigating this fiscal crisis.

Best Regards,

Catherine A. Womack
Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy
Bridgewater State University

Lindsay Stirton

2011-03-20T15:47:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am writing to express my concern and disappointment at the proposed closure of PEAK, the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele, with the absorption of some of its activities within the Law School. I would like to say first that I understand the pressure that institutions like Keele are under in the current funding envi...ronment, and I recognise that difficult choices may have to be made as to where cuts are to fall. At the same time, PEAK is undoubtedly one of the jewels of your University, and I can't help thinking that your analysis of Keele's priorities and strategy has somehow gone awry, however carefully the decision-making process has been undertaken. I know that you have received many e-mails expressing concern at the decision, and putting forward arguments in PEAK's defence. I doubt I have anything new to add to making this case, although I would like to express my belief that such arguments are ultimately sound. I will concentrate instead on expressing some possible scepticism about the way such decisions are made, and how you might respond to this scepticism.

I understand that the decision-making process has been informed by financial modelling of projected income and staff costs over the next few years. This is of course an essential part of business planning, but the robustness of such modelling exercises depend ultimately not so much on the data speaking for itself as from the judgements made by the analyst. Moreover, when such modelling informs the choice among rival proposals, another distorting factor is at play. Suppose that the modelling exercise produces a projection of (say) a financial position two years down the line, with the estimate including some degree of error (it would be inconceivable that the estimate would be spot-on). Now if the size of the error is large relative to the estimate, the decision that is made is likely to be a product of the error, rather than the estimate. In economics, a version of this is known as the 'winner's curse' and it explains a whole manner of things. Why do mergers rarely achieve their projected synergies? Because the company that succeeds in the take-over is frequently not the one which has made the mean error, whose expected value is zero, but the one which has most extravagantly over-estimated the synergies, and offered the wildest price to the taken-over company's shareholders.

With this scepticism in mind (and I speak not as someone opposed to such methods of decision-making; my current research in fact involves Bayesian statistical modelling of judicial decisions) can I now suggest how you can give confidence to yourself and to others that the decision is based not just on modelling but on sound modelling:

1. You need to give some reassurance about the soundness of your financial modelling generally. As a nice summary, out of all the projections about income, staff costs, student numbers etc., you have made in the last five years, what proportion have been within 10% of the actual realised figures? If this is not the overwhelming majority, then can you see the problem that people might have in having confidence in the decision-making process? If you cannot produce the figures I am asking for, then you are not adequately quality-assuring your own decision-making processes, and your decision-making process might equally fail to inspire confidence.

2. You need to make your projections and financial modelling (just of PEAK, not the wider university's finances which are understandably a matter of commercial confidence) available for scrutiny. You need to be able to state exactly the assumptions that went into them, so that alternative assumptions can be modelled and sensitivity analyses undertaken.

I hope you will undertake these measures forthwith, so that even those who disagree with your decision can have confidence in the decision-making process by which the decision was reached.

Best wishes,

Lindsay Stirton

Lecturer in Law

Nils Hoppe

2011-03-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett

I am writing to you, as no doubt many others are doing, to express my

surprise and dismay at your plans to close the Centre for Professional

Ethics at Keele.

The European ethics scholarship landscape is dominated by only a small

number of outstanding centres of excellence, Keele being one of them. I

find it simply astonishing that one of the academically most impressive

and prestigious centres, staffed by scholars of international

distinction, would be considered for closure. The realisation of such

plans would reflect extremely negatively on Keele University and

British academia as a whole, in particular at a time when - despite

budget constraints across Europe - most high-calibre research-led

universities are increasing their support for accompanying research in

ethics.

Further, the increasing focus placed on questions of ethics and the

practice of responsible science by the European Commission and other

strategic funding and policy bodies should be a clear indication of the

significance of the area. In the light of the circumstances I have

outlined, I can only imagine that the university's plans have been

misreported.

I would be immensely grateful if you could indicate whether I am

complaining in error.

Kind regards from Hannover

Nils Hoppe

NEW: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199587551.do

Dr. Nils Hoppe

Director

CELLS - Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences

Institute for Philosophy

Leibniz Universitaet Hannover

Richard Hull

2011-03-20T08:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am writing to add my voice to the widely shared deep disbelief and sadness at the proposed closure of PEAK and the discipline of Philosophy at Keele. This proposal is being tabled at precisely the time when nurturing and strengthening the study of Ethics and Philosophy is critically important.

My association with Keele runs deep. I taught and studied in the Department of Philosophy and, latterly, SPIRE, from 1997 until mid 2000. I have retained professional and personal contact with staff in Philosophy and at PEAK ever since. Amongst other things, this has resulted in collaborative publications, reciprocal initiatives between our respective institutions and the co-opting of expertise from PEAK to develop and publish reports for the Irish Council for Bioethics. Indeed, two of my former students are now employed by PEAK.

Suffice to say, I have first hand knowledge and experience of the excellent teaching and research that is being conducted at PEAK and in Philosophy at Keele. Your proposal threatens many fantastic scholars and, just as important, lovely people. In no way do they deserve to have been treated in the ways that are currently coming to light.

From the evidence that is being revealed now that a little transparency is emerging with respect to the background behind this proposal, some of the practices, policies and procedures of Keele University management have been, to say the least, ethically dubious. May I respectfully suggest that a more fitting proposal at this time would be that all of those involved in the management of the University avail of the excellent ethics training that is currently available at PEAK.

In addition, I respectfully urge you, in the strongest possible sense, to re-think this non-solution to more deep rooted problems and questions in Higher Education, before Keele University becomes intractably associated with the narrowing of scholarship and study based on misguided economic assessments. As is happening all too often in the University sector and in society more generally, this proposal looks at the cost of everything (unfairly it would seem) and the value of nothing.

Sincerely,
Richard Hull

PEAK response to Vice Chancellor's E-mail

2011-03-20T05:06:00.000-07:00

Thank you very much for your message, and for taking the time to express your concern over what you have heard about proposals for academic restructuring at Keele. I appreciate the concerns and issues that you raise, and recognise the strong commitment to the discipline and its inherent value that underlies your communication.

[It is disingenuous to describe this as restructuring when in fact the proposal suggests closures: specifically, closure of the philosophy programme and the closure of PEAK. Although some ethics expertise (from PEAK) is to be absorbed by the School of Law, the majority of staff will be made redundant based on projected cuts. The assumption that PEAK as an entity could be absorbed into the School of Law by maintaining one or two individuals shows how poorly the management understand or appreciate the distinctive strengths and activities of the Centre. The closure of the philosophy programme will result in an absence of philosophy in Keele for the first time since its establishment in 1949.]

Reductions in funding mean that Keele has had to set a target of saving a total of £6.5m in staff costs. Can I reassure you that recommendations relating to the possible closure of programmes and disciplines at Keele in consequence of this need are made extremely reluctantly, and only after considerable consideration, deliberation and consultation. [We cannot comment on whether the consideration and deliberation was considerable but there was no consultation with staff affected. Figures have been gathered over several months with no explanation or disclosure of the review that was taking place. The proposals were disclosed to us on Wednesday the 16 March for the first time. They were then disclosed to the University as a whole that afternoon.] Any recommendations relating to specific disciplines are not in any way a judgement on the inherent academic and intellectual value of those disciplines, but are a reflection of a complex set of absolute and comparative operational, financial and academic-profile issues relating to individual disciplines, Schools and Faculties in the context of the University’s future well-being. Keele has a strong academic position, but must always seek to sustain that in the challenging financial and competitive arena of UK higher education in the future.

[This is perfectly accurate: the “inherent academic and intellectual value of [our] disciplines” are not in any way taken into account. Indeed, this is part of the problem. As the VC states, it is a purely financial decision. However, while we acknowledge that PEAK must be financially viable, we dispute the accounting system that has been used to calculate our financial contribution to the University. In these proposals PEAK, a post-graduate teaching centre, has been evaluated on the same accounting principles as any academic school that has undergraduate cohorts. They artificially isolate PEAK as though it was not part of the School of Law, of which it has been a part for over five years. The proposals for Senate make clear that the School as a whole is currently making a strong financial contribution to the University. Of course, undergraduate teaching is much more efficient, from a financial perspective. Ethics teaching at postgraduate level was separated from undergraduate philosophy teaching in a past restructuring exercise for which the philosophy programme and PEAK now seem to be punished. The financial review which was undertaken does not, as far as we can make out, include grant income or all of our postgraduate research income which would undoubtedly improve the outlook for the centre.

Furthermore, we cannot comment on the ‘complex set of absolute and comparative operational, financial and academic-profile issues’ used by the Staff Savings Working Group because the assessment methodology and the basis for calculating projected data have not been explained. It has not been made clear whether all units and sub-units of the university have been scrutinised or just specific sub-units. No explanation is given for why certain programmes or units are targeted. It is odd that other parts of the university have been asked to undertake cost savings while both PEAK and Philosophy have been targeted for total closure.]

For this reason, the review that produced the recommendations has been guided by the principles of:

a) Ensuring it reflects the University's overall strategy, including its size, academic shape, and range of activity, and enhances financial stability and sustainability.

[Given that the University’s current strategic plan includes a commitment to postgraduate teaching closing a centre that largely teaches postgraduates, like PEAK, appears contrary to this. We also find it difficult to understand why the Centre was assessed using a financial model more appropriate to undergraduate teaching.]

b) Recognising the importance of maintaining a breadth of academic disciplines and the need to position the University’s academic base to respond to both internal and external strategic drivers.

[Removal of philosophy and applied philosophy through the closure of both the philosophy programme and PEAK raises distinct difficulties for a university that claims to be comprehensive and committed to maintaining a breadth of academic disciplines.]

c) Minimising the impact of any changes on current and prospective students.

[The closure of PEAK will impact upon present students – how could it not? It is important to understand that most of our students study part-time, so any sudden cut in staff will immediately impact on the quality of teaching for current students. The University’s decision to announce these cuts with no consultation will also impact future recruitment on to our courses – how could it not? We contest this claim, which seems to be based on the assumption that one or two individuals absorbed into the law school, would be able to:

maintain grant income
teach across a range of undergraduate courses
teach across a range of postgraduate courses
maintain the distinctive environment which has contributed to PEAK’s distinctive and internationally recognised teaching and research]

In the case of the Centre for Professional Ethics, the careful financial modelling that has been applied to all academic areas of the University shows that the staff costs associated with the Centre exceeded its income by 19% in 2009/10, and on the basis of our forecasts will still be over 90% of income by 2013/14. In these circumstances it is incumbent upon us to find ways of addressing a structural problem, and to do so with reference to the principles outlined above. This is why the proposals that will be debated on 23 March by the University Senate include the recommendation that the Centre should not continue as a separate unit, but that some activities associated with the Centre should be identified for full integration with the Law School, which is committed to developing a more distinctive curriculum that includes ethics as an element of legal education. If this recommendation is accepted and implemented, then some of the Centre's activities will be continued, and some of the staff in the Centre will continue to work at Keele.

[There is no discussion of which activities will be maintained or how they will be maintained. We ourselves as a centre have tried to model what the retained posts would look like and doubt that it would be logistically possible for one or two individuals to cover undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, research, and administrative duties as outlined above.]

In the case of Philosophy, the careful financial modelling that has been applied to all academic areas of the University shows that income associated with the programme is projected to fall between now and 2013/14, with staff costs rising to over 90% of that income by 2013/14. In an environment where the number of EU undergraduates taking the subject cannot be increased without a negative impact on other parts of the University, and in the absence of evidence that Philosophy is in a position to achieve significant additional income through recruitment of overseas and/or postgraduate students, the University has no choice but to seek ways of addressing the problem, and to do so with reference to the principles outlined above. This is why the proposals that will be debated on 23 March by the University Senate include a recommendation that the Philosophy programme be closed, and that the income associated with the programme be retained within the discipline's parent School in order to underpin its financial stability and sustainability.

We have throughout this process considered alternative views on how such savings might be achieved. This process has been thorough but the University will consider other options that can be shown to deliver the required savings in the required timescale. We have also ensured that we have followed due process not simply as required by statute but also by our desire to consult fully and to ensure those at risk of being negatively affected are made aware at the earliest opportunity.

[The claim that the University is open to proper consultation and discussion of alternative restructuring options is belied by the fact that this proposal was released at the last possible minute to be discussed at Senate on 23 March and the subsequent Council meeting on 7 April. The group that undertook this review could have been open about what it was they were doing and/or consulted with the Centre during the course of their deliberations – they chose to do neither.]

The proposals for reducing pay costs are the basis of consultation with Senate, and with the University Council in early April. If the proposals are approved by Council then there will follow a further period of consultation, during which we shall endeavour to achieve the required savings by voluntary means. At all times our primary concerns will be for the experience of current and future students and support for staff who may be affected by the proposals.

[Given the weaknesses of the arguments outlined by the Vice Chancellor, highlighted above, we would strongly encourage consideration of alternative restructuring and cost-saving options in a genuinely open and consultative manner. It is clear that as the proposal currently stands, a negative impact on current and prospective students and remaining staff will be both considerable and inevitable.]

James Wilson

2011-03-20T05:03:00.000-07:00

Dear Prof Foskett

I am dismayed to see the proposed closure of PEAK. I and all my colleagues in the field are baffled by this: the Centre for Professional Ethics is known worldwide for its rigorous and philosophical approach to bioethics.

I worked in PEAK from 2004-8, directing the MA Medical Ethics and Law 2006-8. If I had not taken up my current post, I would now be Director of PEAK. I can honestly say that PEAK are the finest group of colleagues I have ever worked with. I was struck immediately and continually by the extremely high quality of the teaching, and how valuable the students found the courses. PEAK has carved out a distinctive niche in teaching ethics to full-time professionals. This is a market which can only be expected to grow over the future, and I notice that the university's own projections have PEAK returning to profitability in the near future.

PEAK is a small unit, but it punches well above its weight in research. To give you the briefest summary of some its esteem indicators: PEAK currently has two prestigious Wellcome Trust Clinical Fellows in Biomedical Ethics; in 2010 it played host to a Leverhulme Visiting Professor, and in 2011-12 a Marie Curie Fellow. Its members edit two international journals (Public Health Ethics, and Research Ethics); it recently completed the EU's Textbook for Research Ethics; Angus Dawson is Vice-President of the International Association of Bioethics.

In short, PEAK is one of the best brands Keele University has. You cannot afford to let it close.

Yours sincerely

James Wilson
--
Dr James Wilson
Lecturer in Philosophy and Health
University College London

Lisa A. Eckenwiler

2011-03-20T03:46:00.000-07:00

Dear Vice Chancellor Foskett,

I was shocked and saddened to learn of the proposal to close PEAK at your university. I have been working professionally in philosophy/bioethics for just over ten years and in this time, have come to hold PEAK in great regard. Although I am based in the US, I am well aware of PEAK's outstanding reputation through my interactions with its faculty and some of its outstanding students. Two members of the faculty, Professors Angus Dawson and David Hunter, are among my most cherished colleagues given the excellence of their work and the quality of their characters.

My plea to keep PEAK open is, above all, motivated by the ongoing and, indeed, urgent need for education and training in ethics. With contemporary advances in medicine and technology, humanitarian health crises, and the evolving global landscape of research involving humans -- to name just a few things -- the need for institutions like PEAK is more pressing than ever. I sincerely hope that the university will take the long view in this time of financial strain and uphold its commitment to PEAK. We can ill afford its loss.

Sincerely yours,
Lisa Eckenwiler

Lisa A. Eckenwiler, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Department of Health Administration and Policy
Director of Health Care Ethics
Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics
George Mason University

Samantha Griffin

2011-03-20T03:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am currently a PhD student in the Centre for Professional Ethics. One of the important factors in my coming to study at Keele was the status of PEAK as a highly influential centre of bioethics research. PEAK’s position as such as establishment in a central location was also a significant factor. I have also worked in and around higher education for ten years – and am very aware of the current funding crisis.

I am deeply concerned by proposals to close the Centre, as I am by proposals to close the philosophy programme. The University, rather than being a place of scholarship and learning, appears to now consider itself as a popular degrees machine. I am extremely disappointed by the low value (as opposed to the simple price) that the University seems to place on these areas of scholarship. The skills obtained from these courses of study may not be those that lend themselves to immediate financial reward, but in terms of the development of the individual, and of critical thought as a foundation for academic advancement, they are unparalleled.

The University also seems to have made a fundamental error in considering that ethics should not be a separate area to law – the two are not the same. Although both disciplines are strengthened by the association, Bioethics in particular operates in an area where it needs to be in association with, but often in advance of, the law. By claiming that some of the Centre’s responsibilities will be taken up by Law is worrying because the distinctiveness of the Centre’s work collapses. There is also no indication of what areas will be considered worth retaining.

I would also suggest that in a University with a medical school, the loss of a centre such as PEAK removes the opportunities for collaboration or future recruitment to courses. I am alarmed at the lack of consideration that appears to have been given to consultation with the Centre and the Philosophy programme to examine routes to further income generation opportunities, particularly with the advent of higher fees.

I have received reassurances that I will be able to finish my programme at Keele, and receive the ‘positive student experience’. About this I have serious reservations. Firstly, a demoralised staff cannot deliver effective support and teaching. Secondly, cuts to the department may threaten access to appropriate supervision. Thirdly, a significant amount of my positive student experience is based on identifying with the aims and research of my department. I have seldom found such a positive environment as that which exists in PEAK. Finally, despite my respect and admiration for my law specialist colleagues, I consider myself as a bioethicist. It was that expertise that brought me here, not the discipline of Law.

Yours sincerely

Samantha Griffin, MSc.

Joanne Gordon

2011-03-20T03:12:00.000-07:00

Bob Brecher

2011-03-19T10:30:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett

I have just heard of the proposal that both PEAK and philosophy more generally be closed down at Keele. As an erstwhile external examiner at PEAK, as well as working in the field more widely, to say that I am incredulous would be an understatement. The work of PEAK in health, medical and related ethics is without question the best in the United Kingdom, and enjoys a well-deserved international reputation both for its intellectual quality and its engagement with constituencies outside academe. Its impact, in short, is as outstanding as it is undeniable.

Were the University of Keele to decide that this work should cease, therefore, it would be a blow not only against ethics, but also to the standing and prestige of the University itself. I would respectfully ask the the University does not proceed with this proposal.

Yours sincerely

Bob Brecher
Professor of Moral Philosophy
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Politics & Ethics
University of Brighton

Ruth Stirton

2011-03-19T09:18:00.001-07:00

Extract from the email: "I am writing to express my considerable concern about the proposed cuts affecting PEAK at Keele University. As a relatively new lecturer working in the field of bioethics, I have seen PEAK as a shining beacon of hig...h quality and innovative scholarship. This is true of the professors at the top,(Angus Dawson and Stephen Wilkinson) as well as the lecturers at the beginning of their careers (Sheelagh McGuinness and Sorcha Ui Chonnachtaigh). All the scholars are internationally recognised, and internationally renowned, playing significant roles at a global level. They are also remarkably productive in an era of increased teaching loads and administrative duties. To lose such an important centre of excellence would be a significant loss to bioethics research just at a time when bioethical issues are getting more complex.
At a national level, PEAK is a leader in ethics education for professionals – for example, a significant number of NHS Research Ethics Committee members are graduates of a PEAK training course. This grounding in ethics is fundamental to the success of the NHS Research Ethics Service in the UK. Having attended one of these courses at the beginning of my involvement in research ethics, I can vouch for their excellence.
Whilst there is no doubt that the current economic climate makes the business of running a university extremely difficult, axing a unit with such high impact and such good quality research output seems to be shortsighted folly. As a researcher who has been privileged to work with members of PEAK for some years, and hopes to be able to for many more, I would urge you to reconsider the closure of such an important centre of bioethical research."

Adam Golberg

2011-03-19T09:12:00.001-07:00

Dear Vice-Chancellor,

I am writing as a Keele Philosophy graduate twice over (BA 1998, MPhil Political Philosophy 2003) and as a former member of staff in PEAK from 2001-2005, as Administrator/Centre Manager. I was absolutely astonished to read of plans to close the Centre for Professional Ethics, and I am writing to ask that you reconsider this decision.

I still work in the HE field (my current role is Business Development Executive at Nottingham University Business School), and so I know how tough times are in our sector. But when I left Keele to come to Nottingham in 2009, Keele's strategy appeared to be to find niche areas of particular distinctiveness and strength that Keele could find, exploit, and take on a world-leading role. PEAK was held up as an example of this - a suite of highly-rated and distinctive Masters courses, a unique doctoral programme, and a highly-successful programme of knowledge transfer and entrepreneurial enterprise activities that was the subject of a HEFCE good practice case study. All this in spite of very little support from the university.

PEAK does tremendously important and valuable work. I have seen at first hand the transformative and empowering effect that the courses have on students - taking brilliant people and making them even more brilliant, giving them a new string to their bow which is of immense value to their employers, their colleagues, the NHS, and ultimately patients. Research Ethics Committees at NHS trusts and universities all over UK and Ireland are full of members trained by Keele staff. The impact and value of this is immense - we rely upon these people to allow good research, while safeguarding the safety and dignity of research participants.

You and I both know that none of this pays the bills. However, It is very disappointing that - yet again - Keele appears to be going down the road of closures, job losses, and cuts driven by central management, without any kind of involvement or consultation with those at the sharp end. If PEAK costs or income has become an issue, then why no informal discussions? Why is a Senate paper the first anyone outside Keele Hall hears about it? Why no requests for business plans? Why go straight to closure? Why are those whose vision and energy have built up PEAK from a small sideline of the old Department of Philosophy not to be given a chance to move it on to the next stage in its development?

I hope that you will reconsider, and that common sense will prevail.

Best wishes

Adam Golberg

Iain Brassington

2011-03-19T09:09:00.000-07:00

Professor Foskett –

I am writing to you to add my voice to the protest against the proposed closure of the philosophy programme and the Centre for Professional Ethics. The proposal is short-sighted at misguided in the extreme.

Philosophy, the discipline that more than any other represents the highest ideals of free enquiry, is and ought to be at the core of the academic enterprise. That an established university such as Keele has seen to remove its philosophy programme is a disaster not just for the staff and students involved, but for the very ability of Keele to represent the ideal of the university.

The Centre for Professional Ethics is an academic gem, punching well above its weight, and any half-sane university would do everything it could to keep it going. Indeed, the Centre has a very high international prestige in its own right, quite independently from Keele; it is strange that the university has seen fit to jettison this obvious asset. The Centre boasts an absurdly high concentration of talent, with world-standard researchers in reproductive ethics, public health ethics, and research ethics (to name just three fields). Its web of alumni and former staff demonstrates just how successful it has been over the years at attracting and honing talent, and sending it back out in to the world.

While I appreciate that there are currently problems facing both the philosophy programme and the CPE, these seem – based on documentation that is currently being widely circulated – to be largely attributable to mismanagement at the university level, and to the predictable effects of the recession. The problems are hardly unique, hardly incurable, and hardly grounds to close academic departments.

I urge you not to go ahead with the proposals.

Sincerely

Iain Brassington

CSEP/ iSEI/ School of Law

University of Manchester

John Rogers

2011-03-19T05:35:00.000-07:00

Dear Vice-Chancellor,

I write about the proposal to be put to the next meeting of Senate for the closure of Philosophy and of Professional Ethics at Keele. I write as an ex head of Department of Philosophy at Keele and the person who started MAs in Medical Ethics about 25 years ago. I came to Keele in 1962 when there were two Philosophy Departments, in line with Lindsay's founding ideas about Keele, and when Philosophy was regarded as one of the strongest departments in the university. In recent years, along with the general run down of the Humanities at Keele (the closure of Classics and much of Modern Languages) there has been very little support for Philosophy from the centre (for example no chair in Philosophy since I retired in 2004) and it is not surprising that it has slipped from the position of prominence that it once used to have in the University.

I do not now have access to all the relevant figures for recruitment to either Philosophy or Professional Ethics but the national figures for recruitment do not support the University's proposed policy of closing these courses. Several universities have recently expanded philosophy (e.g. Exeter and Aberdeen) and started Professional Ethics (e.g. Sussex), partly because they do not require enormous capital investment, and applications for such courses is buoyant. I am sure with the right support Keele could recruit well to both areas. Philosophy as an undergraduate option obviously fits so very well within the Keele joint honours system. Professional Ethics gives Keele a special vocational offering within the area, especially with the introduction of postgraduate studies in medicine. I also understand that the staffing figures with which the University seeks to justify its policy are at least misleading and probably incorrect. I would urge you and Senate to think again before taking these proposals forward. As they stand they can do nothing but harm to the University.

Yours sincerely,

John Rogers

........................................
Professor G.A.J. Rogers

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
Editor
British Journal for the History of Philosophy
Philosophy
SPIRE
Keele University
Keele
Staffs ST5 5BG
UK

Ruth Cain

2011-03-19T05:01:00.000-07:00

Dear Sirs

As a former staff member of the Law School at Keele, where I spent a very happy three years working alongside PEAK staff, I am horrified and incredulous to hear of the proposed closure of what is universally acknowledged (except, it appears, by University accountants and management) to be an outstanding and indispensable research and teaching centre.

While working with colleagues at PEAK, I witnessed highly research-active and committed staff working long hours to deliver teaching programmes of outstanding quality, which were appreciated as such by the often professionally-qualified students on the programme. The research contribution of staff at PEAK is acknowledged by other academics in the field to be outstanding, which makes it even harder to understand why they were omitted from the RAE at last submission date. My incredulity at the proposed closure increased on reading the University's report to the Senate outlining reasons for the proposed closure. Even if the dubious financial predictions for PEAK are accepted, it is clear that PEAK will in fact shortly cover its costs! This is according to a calculation which (bizarrely) fails to include the £750,000 of research income generated by PEAK staff.

The University clearly has many questions to answer regarding this proposed closure. Why has the University (as outlined in a previous letter sent to you by Nafsika Athanassoulis) failed to account properly for the contributions made by PEAK to university income in previous years? Why has PEAK been selected for closure when other departments in similar financial situations have simply been asked to 'cut costs'? Why did the University fail to consult with its own staff before abruptly presenting these plans to the Senate?How can any University which places any value at all upon the intellectual contribution made by its own staff justify these plans? The current financial environment is not a sufficient excuse for the destruction of an outstanding research centre such as this; nor are the disadvantages accrued to it by a backlog of poor managerial and accounting practices, which have concealed its actual, significant contribution to the intellectual and indeed financial resources of the University.

The University of Keele wil impoverish itself in many ways if this closure goes ahead: economically, intellectually and in terms of staff and student morale. The current financial climate requires a just, careful and prudent response to the difficulties faced by UK higher education. Respected universities such as Keele have a duty to protect their best scholars, and their students, from brutal and ill-thought-out closures such as this. I hope that the plans to close PEAK, justly described as one of the gems of Keele, will be reconsidered and that the University will enter into open and democratic discussions regarding fairer and more sensible ways to distribute the burden of the current budget constraints.

Yours sincerely

Dr. Ruth Cain
Lecturer in Law
Kent Law School

Ambreena Manji

2011-03-19T04:59:00.000-07:00

Dear Professors Foskett and Thirunamachandran,

I learned with disappointment last week that the University is considering the closure of PEAK. I am writing to express my deep disquiet about this decision. At a time when Keele is making such good progress in raising its international profile and focusing on the internationalisation of teaching and research, a centre like Peak is invaluable. It has a staff of international standing whose expertise on a range of important contemporary issues in ethics is amongst the best in the United Kingdom. Given the direction of travel of Britain’s international development policy, for example, with an increasing emphasis on issues such as good governance and aid transparency, PEAK is supremely well placed to contribute to the work on internationalisation currently being done at Keele. I respectfully ask that the decision to close PEAK is rethought in the context of the University’s long-term international plans.

With all good wishes from Nairobi,

Ambreena

Dr Ambreena Manji | Director | British Institute in Eastern Africa (BIEA)

Rodney D Gilbert

2011-03-19T04:57:00.000-07:00

I was greatly saddened to hear of the University's plans to close PEAK. I can honestly say that enrolling for the MA in medical ethics and law has been one of the most worthwhile things I have ever done. I have gained enormous insight from my studies and honestly believe that the world would be a much better place if all doctors did a similar course. Keele has changed the way I think about the world; surely this is the ultimate goal of education.

Of course I recognise that the University, like all institutions, is feeling the effects of the governments financial cutbacks and the recession in general. However, I think that PEAK is one of the jewels in the Keele crown and the world will be a poorer place without it.

Yours sincerely

Rodney D Gilbert MMed(Paed), FRCPCH

Consultant Paediatric Nephrologist, Southampton General Hospital

Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Southampton

Stephen Pattison

2011-03-19T03:48:00.000-07:00

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am shocked to hear that you are proposing to close the renowned Centre
for Professional Ethics at Keele. This is a very distinctive and
distinguished Centre that focusses on an area of increasing importance in
an age of complexity and change, and I can't help thinking that
this is a short-sighted and ultimately self-wounding move. You have
something in the Centre that few other UK Universities can match and I
very much hope that rather than closing it, you might consider enhancing
it and enabling it to do more work of the kind that it has done in the
past. I know that we are living in hard times with difficult choices to
make, but could I please ask you to think seriously about whether or not
this is a wise move? Nationally, we need this Centre and its academics.

Yours,

Stephen Pattison

Stephen Pattison DLitt
Professor of Religion, Ethics and Practice and HG Wood Professor of Theology
Head
Department of Theology and Religion
University of Birmingham

Christian Munthe

2011-03-18T15:58:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from the email sent to the Keele VC, et.al.:

PEAK is an internationally outstanding unit in the field of applied ethics and both Stephen Wilkinson and Angus Dawson are world-leading in their fields, and Dawson is a pioneer in the establishment of public health ethics as an internationally recognized field of research. PEAK's publication list is very impressive (many papers in the best regarded journals and books published by the most highly regarded academic houses) and expands at a steady pace. I have also been given to understand that PEAK has, over the years, been an important income source for the university – and external research funding should keep coming to a unit of PEAK's unquestionable quality. Considering that PEAK achieves all of this with a staff of only eight people is quite remarkable och should mean that, in fact, this is an uncommonly cost-effective academic unit.

Email those involved

2011-03-18T15:24:00.003-07:00

If you would like to express your opinion of the proposal (politely please) the VC can be contacted here:

Prof. Nick Foskett, Vice Chancellor: n.h.foskett@vco.keele.ac.uk

You could cc:

Prof. Rama Thirunamachandran, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost: r.thirunamachandran@vco.keele.ac.uk

Prof. David Shepherd, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences: d.g.shepherd@humss.keele.ac.uk

Please send a copy of any email to:

savepeak@gmail.com

Nafsika Athanassoulis

2011-03-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

My Letter to Keele VC

Dear Professor Foskett,

I am writing to express my deep surprise and sadness at the proposed closures of Philosophy and PEAK at Keele University. My very first job was with what used to be the Department of Philosophy and years later I returned to take up a post with PEAK which I left 18 months ago, so I am quite intimately familiar with both units and the significant contribution they make to both teaching and research in philosophy.

If you will permit me, I would like to bring to your attention some thoughts I had while reading the Senate paper of 23rd March outlining the rationale for the closures. Discussions of these issues may be perceived as an internal matter for Keele, but given the gravity of the proposed measures and the long and fond association I have with philosophy/PEAK I hope you will permit me the indulgence of commenting.

7.2.1.3 This is a surprising criticism of Philosophy in light of the fact that it was a University management decision to split Philosophy from PEAK effectively relocating most PG students within PEAK and the School of Law. Since Philosophy was forced to focus on UG activities and had its PG students effectively moved to another school, it seems highly inconsistent to punish a department for a policy instituted by management at an earlier stage.

7.3.1.2 With all due respect, I would challenge this. During my time at Keele PEAK’s budget was absorbed by Law and it became impossible for anyone to figure out the real numbers relating to either unit. Given the diverse nature of the activities of the two units it became very difficult to properly account for income generated in any way that would clarify who contributed what to where. To give you an example, as Director of the MA in the Ethics of Palliative Care I alerted Professor Thomson to the fact that figures for student income were persistently misrepresented in the budget because the course started in January rather than September, but the figures were never corrected. Even in the academic year where the course changed from a January to a September start and managed to recruit double its usual number of students (a remarkable feat under the circumstances) the figures simply did not reflect this fact, nor were they adjusted despite my numerous attempts to make the errors knows.

7.3.1.3 To the extent that this is the case, much of it is the result of University management policies rather than PEAK’s lack of efforts. For example, when the University decided to slash advertising budgets across the board, repeated efforts by PEAK to ask for a special exception for its programmes were met with silence. General Keele University advertising is targeted at a completely different audience from potential PEAK students. Potential PEAK students are professionals who need to be reached through completely different means, however each advertising pound for PEAK pays for itself by generating thousands of pounds in corresponding income (this case was made repeatedly to the University at the time with the appropriate figures, but fell on deaf ears). If one takes a successful enterprise, developed after careful market research, and modelled on sound business principles and effectively cripples its ability to function through generalised and inappropriate restrictions, it is no wonder that income drops. PEAK has always excelled based on its ability to be innovative, flexible and responsive to market demands, but has instead been pigeonholed under general regulations that do not apply the unit and put under inappropriate pressure to contribute to UG teaching in the School of Law, something which is a wasteful misapplication of the talents of PEAK staff.

7.3.1.6 This strikes me as particularly unjust as, once again, it was the University’s higher management decision not to submit most PEAK staff for RAE review on the grounds of ‘lack of fit with the University’s identified research units’. Of all the irrational decisions affecting PEAK this was perhaps the worst, robbing the University of an almost certain source of income for no good reason. Again PEAK tried to reason with this decision at the time and had little or no response from those in charge. Whatever the wisdom of the decision at the time, it seems grossly unfair to come to conclusions about the research value of a unit that was prevented from making an RAE submission purely on grounds of fit rather than quality.

7.3.1.7 With all due respect the idea that just about anyone can take over PEAK’s teaching is as implausible for philosophy teaching as it is for any other discipline. PEAK’s monumental success is down to the expertise and hard work of its members, who have trained for years to hold the positions they do. PEAK students are themselves highly qualified professionals who expect exceptional standards of teaching and research support and the idea that they can be palmed off to the School of Law is rather naïve. If PEAK is closed, all its income generating abilities, current and future, will be entirely lost to the University.

I hope you do not find my thoughts to be too strongly worded, my intention is not to upset anyone, but it is difficult to retain my equanimity when faced with such a blatant injustice. That Keele University has managed to reduce one of the most highly respected Philosophy Departments in the country to two disparate units under threat of closure is a sad indictment of the state of affairs at the University.

Save PEAK facebook group

2011-03-18T06:54:00.000-07:00

Please show your support for the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele by joining the Save PEAK Facebook group.

Keele's Philosophy Programme is also under threat. They have a Facebook group here, and a website here.