Archive for the ‘Ideas’ Category

Death of OU Professor Steven Rose

Friday, July 18th, 2025

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/10/steven-rose-obituary

Steven Rose obituary

Neuroscientist, author, political activist and advocate for social responsibility in science

Science and politics can make awkward bedfellows, with the very question of whether it is possible to make purely objective observations about the world drawing forth highly politicised positions. The neurobiologist Steven Rose, who has died aged 87, took a broadly reductionist approach to his research into biochemical mechanisms of memory, while at the same time adopting a high-profile political stance against the idea that human behaviour is determined by our genes.

Less publicly but equally influentially, as the first biology professor to be appointed at the Open University – the distance-learning institution founded through a Labour government initiative in 1969 – Rose helped to pioneer a democratic and distributed approach to teaching practical science. He developed experiments that students could complete at home, pooling their results and prefiguring many of the “citizen science” projects that have become popular in recent years.

Impassioned, combative and articulate, Rose gave no quarter in his debates with fellow scientists. In the 1970s he challenged the idea that IQ tests – then being widely adopted in education and employment – measured some genetically determined “general intelligence”. This and subsequent debates played out in a wider cultural arena than is typical of most scientific debates, fuelled by a series of popular books.

His principal targets were the entomologist Edward O Wilson, author of Sociobiology, and the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, later joined by the cognitive neuroscientist Steven Pinker.

To Rose, the idea that the roots of human social behaviour had been planted through the process of natural selection in the service of perpetuating our genes was anathema. While he did not question Darwinian evolution as a driving force in biology, he argued from a Marxist perspective that history and society were at least as important as determinants of human actions.

In 1984 Rose co-authored Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature, together with the American geneticist Richard Lewontin and psychologist Leon Kamin. The book was a trenchant critique of sociobiology and genetic determinism, and went further in blaming such views for the failure to create a fairer society based on socialist principles. It met with mixed reviews, including the suggestion that he and his co-authors had misrepresented the views of their opponents, but Rose never retreated from his position.

More than a decade later, in Lifelines (1997), he restated his arguments, highlighting the developmental and environmental events that take place across a lifetime that are not predetermined but through which an organism “self-organises” to become a unique individual. He wrote: “It is in the nature of living systems to be radically indeterminate, to continually construct their – our – own futures, albeit in circumstances not of our own choosing.”

On first becoming a neurobiologist, Rose consciously chose an important problem to investigate. What is it that changes, biologically, when we learn? Trained as a biochemist, he pursued the hypothesis that some change in the biochemistry of individual brain cells must underlie the enduring traces of memory. He devoted his research career to looking for those traces, in the form of new protein molecules, in the brains of newly hatched chicks.

While he acknowledged that human memory raises far larger questions, he and his colleagues worked on this problem because it was “what we know how to study”. By the time of his retirement he and Radmila Mileusnic had identified protein molecules that could counteract the amnesic effects of antibiotics on learning in chicks, and were hoping to develop them as treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. Like others, however, they ran up against the problem that the brain puts up barriers to such large molecules, so that they cannot be given as pills or injections.

Rose was a compulsive writer, words flowing as easily in print as they did in person, weaving science, society and politics into a single whole. While still in his 20s he published The Chemistry of Life (1966), a hugely successful Penguin paperback explaining the basics of biochemistry to the general reader. His book The Making of Memory: From Molecules to Mind (1992) received the Royal Society science book prize.

One of his later works, The 21st Century Brain, succinctly summarised the achievements of neuroscientists in recent decades, but also warned that science could not always provide the best answers to questions about the mind, consciousness and mental illness. While Rose championed science as an approach to understanding the natural world, he devoted at least as much of his considerable energy to critiques of the relationship between science and the state.

Steven was born into an Orthodox Jewish community in north London, the elder son of Lionel Rose (formerly Rosenberg), a chemistry teacher who became an intelligence officer during the second world war. Lionel subsequently worked full-time as an organiser for the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women before founding an advertising agency. Steven’s mother, Ruth (nee Waxman), gave up her own career aspirations to care for her home and family, but later became co-director of her husband’s agency and ran it single-handed after he died in 1959.

Steven won a scholarship to Haberdashers’ Aske’s boys’ school, then in Cricklewood, north London. Another scholarship took him to study natural sciences at King’s College, Cambridge, where he initially intended to specialise in chemistry. But he found himself in an environment buzzing with new discoveries in biochemistry, including the DNA double helix proposed by James Watson and Francis Crick at the Medical Research Council Unit for Molecular Biology.

With a double first in biochemistry, Rose decided to use his new tools to tackle one of the hardest problems in biology – how the brain works. Cambridge “exiled” him to the Institute of Psychiatry in London to study the biochemistry of slices of cow brain for his PhD. Rose spoke of his frustration at this, saying: “We might as well have been studying big toes or livers or kidneys for all it told me about function.”

He met Hilary Chantler (nee Channell), a recently widowed mature student reading sociology at London School of Economics, at a New Left Review meeting in 1960, and they married the following year.

Political action and protest had been part of his life since childhood – his community came under attack from fascist stone-throwers in the late 40s, and as an undergraduate he had joined in running battles with the police while demonstrating against the invasion of Suez. Steven and Hilary formed a close partnership, both personal and professional: Hilary co-authored several of his books, they were founder members of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, and they jointly held the honorary lectureship post of Gresham professor of physic from 1999 until 2002.

Hilary became professor of social policy at the University of Bradford, with a particular interest in the sociology of science, and they were united in their (broadly Marxist, but not pro-Soviet) political activism on issues such as the Vietnam war, the control of chemical and biological weapons and a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

After a false start as a postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, which he found stiflingly reactionary, Rose spent five years (1964-69) at Imperial College London. There he developed the technique of looking for biochemical changes in single neurons in the brains of chicks after they learned a new behaviour, the basis of his subsequent research work. In 1969 he joined the Open University, building the department of life sciences from scratch, and working out from first principles how one might teach science through a combination of home study and experiment, television programmes and summer schools.

He retired in 1999, but retained his laboratory and continued to conduct research for more than a decade. Reflecting on the values that underpinned his work for the OU, he told an oral history interviewer: “In a democratic society if you want to share power, you have to share knowledge and you have to share the knowledge of science.”

He is survived by Hilary, their two sons, Simon (from Hilary’s first marriage) and Ben, and six grandchildren, Sara, Chloe, Woody, Cosmo, Saul and Mali, and by his brother, Nikolas.

 Steven Peter Russell Rose, neuroscientist, born 4 July 1938; died 9 July 2025

50 objects for 50 years. No 2. The McArthur microscope

Monday, April 30th, 2018

 

In 1929, in need of a portable instrument for use in the jungle, Dr John McArthur conceived the idea of the light-weight microscope. He developed his concept while a prisoner-of-war and sold his first one in 1957. It had enjoyed sales of about 1,000 by the time that the OU showed an interest about a decade later. However, the OU wanted a simpler, plastic version for its Home Experiment Kits. The OU’s first Vice Chancellor felt that ‘carrying out of experiments at home by students would be a vital part of offering correspondence tuition in science and technology’, see here. The university recognised that many of its students would be unfamiliar with delicate scientific mechanisms or would find it difficult to keep their study materials safe from other family members. It did not want a delicate rack and pinion system for focusing and the objective lens had to be robust. McArthur met the deadline and about 7,000 of these tiny (5in x 3in x 1in), cheap, microscopes were to be mailed to the first students at the OU in the first HEKs. It has been called a ‘gem of a portable microscope’ and ‘legendry in its application and construction’. It has also been described as ‘an amazing little instrument… although small, lightweight and almost entirely plastic, it makes a very serviceable field instrument’.

The OU wanted its students to have the opportunity to be active learners not passive recipients, to understand that science did not require specialist laboratories or a campus. The home could become a place for university-level study. The inclusion of the microscope in Home Experiment Kits showed the OU’s commitment to putting learners at the centre and of adapting technology to ensure they were supported.

In the 1970s a large-scale project invited children to draw a picture of a scientist. Men in white coats and wild hair abounded. Instead of a university being outside the normal and day-to-day, instead of scientists being white-coated men, the OU gave scientific instruments to people, including my mum an early OU student. There was spluttering and ridicule in the press about the ineptitude of housewives but the OU persisted. The idea of a university and of who could be a student, was transformed. The OU enabled science to be more than an activity for men in white coats in labs, housewives could study in their own homes, submariners could study under the waves.

Subsequently the OU’s Virtual Microscope has been developed to allow students with internet access to explore digitized slides and thin sections in a browser window. There are several specialist microscopes. They enable OU students to gaze upon images which leading scientists and academics are also examining.

Pygmalion, Zeus and OU slippers

Tuesday, June 14th, 2016

On 11th June, Jess Hughes and Dan Weinbren discussed how Greek myths have been employed to help us understand the history of the OU. Professor Sewart argued that the OU was like Athena, in that it sprang forth, fully armed, from the head of Zeus. However, Dan Weinbren suggested that this myth marginalised the longer roots of the OU in 18thC part-time courses for adults, nineteenth century correspondence courses and 20th century radio and television. It also marginalised the role of women, notably Jennie Lee, and the role of the state and the market.

We also discussed the value and uses of Ovid’s ‘Pygmalion’ tale, updated by Bernard Shaw just prior to the First World War and again in the film ‘My Fair Lady’ before there was another incarnation in the 1980s with ‘Educating Rita’.

In addition, we considered if the slippers and wellies story, now so frequently retold, was a myth of the OU. See here for the discussion.

Open to making a profit

Thursday, August 8th, 2013

BPP University College of Professional Studies which offers courses in law, accountancy, business and health course and claims to have over 36,000 students, has started to make a profit. it has been compared to the OU in that it runs postgraduate degree courses, MBAs, summer schools and training courses and has schools in a number of places including London, Bristol, Birmingham, Cambridge, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester.In addition it offers part-time programmes, accelerated course and online distance learning courses.

The OU: collective creation or top-down imposition?

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013

Much of the reporting of the recent development of universities laments the passing of a golden age. Sometimes these accounts are a burnished and reconstructed version of the past which portray universities as victims. However, the OU has played a more active role. (more…)

Systems and students

Thursday, April 25th, 2013

Often the OU is seen in terms of systems. It also needs to be understood in terms of students. (more…)

Marxist bias?

Monday, March 25th, 2013

History, Marx argued repeats itself, ‘first as tragedy, then as farce’. At the OU there has been a rerun of the Marxist bias stories. In the 1980s it was Conservative Ministers who claimed to have found Marxists at the OU. Today it is Education Secretary Michael Gove. One hundred academics, including one associated with the OU,  signed an open letter to Gove.  The authors suggested that Mr Gove’s ideas could ‘severely erode educational standards’.  The Minister responded by categorising them as Marxists. He also suggested that those who stress the importance of communities of practice, a concept which is popular within the OU, were Marxist. He suggested a new way of categorising academics, explaining, ‘There is good academia and bad academia’.  

Mr Gove went on to propose that there is a wider left-wing conspiracy. Although the OU has not been mentioned specifically it seems that there is a group of people who ‘in and around our universities who praised each other’s research, sat on committees that drafted politically correct curricula, drew gifted young teachers away from their vocation and instead directed them towards ideologically driven theory … [The Group] operate by stealth, using its influence to control the quangos and committees which shaped policy.’ David Cameron has proposed that state education and its teachers are a “left-wing establishment’. It is not clear that such categorisations support the improvement of understandings and knowledge.

Open to satire?

Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

Should a public figure or institution be brave enough to wish, with the poet Robert Burns, ‘to see oursels as ithers see us’, the cartoonist’s art is likely to remind them of another adage: be careful what you wish for. 

The British Cartoon Archive at the University of Kent provides a window onto the ways in which people and organisations have been portrayed through the ages.  As a national institution, The Open University hasn’t evaded capture by the caricaturist’s ink.  This group of cartoons evokes an evolving pen portrait in which the ‘University of the Air’ lived up to its name in at least one respect: it was difficult to pin down in a visual medium.  With no substantial image of its own, the OU was not so much used as a target for satire in its own right, as a means for cartoonists to satirise some of their more ‘usual suspects’.  Groups of people and themes caricatured via their association with the OU included politicians, television, students, changing social mores and class aspiration.

(more…)

End of an era, or repetition of an error?

Wednesday, May 30th, 2012

Many people have clear ideas about what they think that the OU has done, its history. These are reflected in their views about its future. For example, it is argued here that ‘the Open University is trying to poach full-time students from “traditional brick universities’. Competition for students was not invented by the OU and throughout its life the OU (open to people) has resisted treating students simply as objects to be poached or assumed that some adult learners automatically belong elsewhere.  Doug Clow proposed another approach and others noted that the OU was cheaper than other universities in England but the ‘thought slash blog’ continued to present the increase in fees as ‘the end of the OU as we know it — but only for students that live in England’, here. Understanding the shift in funding towards individual learners and away from taxpayers as part of a longer and wider trend could help us gain a better sense of its implications. Presenting change in terms of a drama of epochal moments may be less useful.

Bringing it all back home

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

When, early in 2012, Alan Tait, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Curriculum and Qualifications, received an honorary doctorate from the Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics, one of Russia’s leading economic institutions, in recognition of his services to distance education in Europe he gave a keynote address. This was about open and distance learning in Europe. This was to an audience of rectors from universities across the former Soviet states and also to students. A former President of the European Distance and Elearning Network and the Chief Editor of the European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, Alan noted that ‘there is currently significant effort in Russia to invest in distance education’. While MESI might be interested to learn from the OU, the OU has learnt from the USSR which provided a role model for the University of the Air.

(more…)