Lucy Pursehouse, Senior Lecturer in the University's School of Health and Wellbeing. Lucy's main areas of teaching include Innovations in Mental Health and Exploring Contemporary Issues in Mental Health.

Last week was National Mental Health Awareness Week in the United Kingdom.

Now let’s talk about Mental Health!

In an era of economic uncertainty with rising unemployment, never has there been a more important time to consider the topic of mental health.

Current Department of Health (DoH, 2012) statistics would indicate that mental health conditions are common and also on the increase, with 1 in 4 people being affected in any given year. These statistics are based on those who have received a clinical diagnosis, either from their General Practitioner or Specialist Mental Health Services. However, it may be fair to say many more people go undiagnosed, misdiagnosed or suffer in silence. Why may this be, when there have been so many advances in health and social care?

Firstly, consideration has to be given to the huge amount of stigma that is attached to having ‘a mental health problem’; the term itself derives from Greek meaning symbol/mark of disgrace. Historical writings would indicate that issues of stigma have been tightly woven into the fabric of mental health, and that it continues to be deeply entrenched in our individual and collective psyche.  Much of this has been and continues to be fuelled in part by powerful literary, artistic as well as media representations, that very subtly shape our perceptions of mental health.

Clearly stigma is a factor that holds people back from seeking help. Furthermore, many who have received a diagnosis cite that issues relating to stigma then follows them, hindering career progress, fuelling discrimination and acting as a block to gaining employment or staying supported in a job whilst in recovery. Therefore, one of the first aims of any serious policy directive has to be centred on addressing and tackling this issue, and without this commitment, Mental Health will continue to be viewed with fear, misunderstanding and something not to be talked about.

‘No health without mental health – implementation framework’ (2012) places the issue of stigma reduction as one of its six key objectives, along with providing more positive experiences of care and support. Both objectives, if fully realised, may lead to the fulfilment of a further objective, that of more people having better mental health which again is ever more salient in the existing difficult economic climate. Similarly, a recent initiative led by two leading charities, ‘Mind’ and ‘Rethink for Mental Illness, funded by the DoH, is taking steps to tackle the above issues, with talk and action. The following link takes you to the webpage for this campaign 'Time to Change'.

This exciting programme is the largest in England to date, and hopefully will prove to be an important catalyst to facilitate meaningful and permanent change. To not only put an end to some of the negative associations we may consciously or subconsciously hold, but also provide opportunity to reframe these in a more positive light.

Finally, and most importantly, for this to become firmly embedded, it needs to continue to draw on the voices of those with lived experience of mental health to provide the synergy to deliver creative and responsive ways to raise awareness of Mental Health and eradicate stigma and discrimination.

Lucy Pursehouse

Pliny Soocoormanee, Administrative Assistant and an active member of the University of Wolverhampton’s LGBT Staff Network

IDAHO Celebrations

So, what’s IDAHO?

A day to celebrate the seventh least densely populated state of the USA? Sadly, no. In fact, IDAHO is that odd acronym which stands for the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and it took place this past Friday, May 17.

But is there not already a Gay pride or ‘Pride’; is that not all the same thing?  The reasons are different. ‘Pride’ started initially as a protest movement, a protest against a repressive society. Over the years however ‘Pride’ has evolved to become more of celebration.

IDAHO is important for another reason. Twenty three years ago, homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness from the World Health Organisation. Distant are those days when electric shock therapy was advocated to “cure” homosexuality. Distant indeed are the days of Section 28, especially when this year a resounding majority of MPs voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the House of Commons. Yet while massive progress has been achieved, there is still much work to be done.

Homophobia is still present, bullying in schools is a major concern and Transphobia is sadly alive. The old clichés are still present and scapegoating LGBT people for all sorts of ills is not uncommon - it has even claimed that the recent volatility in North Korea was somehow linked to same sex marriage! 

Certainly, changing attitudes is a slow and on-going process and increasing visibility of the LGBT community helps this process. Therefore it is a symbolic gesture on IDAHO to fly a rainbow flag. Such symbols are important as they can send a strong signal that we would like our environment to be inclusive of everyone and welcoming to LGBT persons.

But it is sad to note that in more than 75 countries, among them several commonwealth countries, homosexuality is still criminalised – often a relic of colonisation. It has been argued that in some cultures homosexuality is not accepted and we cannot “force” them to accept the LGBT community. But it would appear that this argument is unsound. Culture is not immutable. Indeed many countries today that are open and accepting were in another time very repressive. It seems that some people play with the vernacular of cultural defence to veneer their homophobia. We need to recognise that people have different sexual orientation and gender identity. Equally, it is important to recognise that we all have the same capacity for love and compassion – the capacity to be simply human.

Pliny Soocoormanee

Steve Cooper, Senior Lecturer in Popular Music

‘With A Little Help From My Friends’ - The Allure of Eurovision

The arrival of May offers us many national treasures such as the FA Cup Final and the Chelsea Flower Show, but few can argue with the longevity and passion aroused by Eurovision, the music competition to outlast all other music TV events.

X-Who?

The contest is firmly implanted in British consciousness not only thanks to much-loved winners like Sandi, Lulu and Bucks Fizz, but also because it holds a special place in our hearts as a once-a-year TV event that brings together an audience who are not all that interested in the music, but love the spectacle.

In that sense it mirrors the Grand National. You don't have to follow horse racing to enjoy it, and you might even put a few quid on one particular nag to win because you like the name or the colours, rather than the jockey or the trainer. Ditto Eurovision. 

Picking a winner in Eurovision is fraught with danger but you'd think by now there was a magic formula to composing a winning song, wouldn’t you? Songwriters spend countless hours refining their craft by poring over lyrics, song forms, hooks, melodies, chords and then set all those elements off simultaneously for 3 minutes (a Eurovision song never breaks that rule) in the hope of capturing a feeling with which a worldwide audience of 125 Million or so can easily identify.

Simple?

Far from it. The drama of the show is watching the fallers as well as those galloping off in front. 

Despite the shows detractors, the success of ABBA nearly forty years ago remains the carrot that songwriters and performers are still tempted by, and though winning it once is great, proving you can repeat the feat is quite another matter.

Indeed, a number of countries turn to established artists when looking for a repeat success. The UK has struggled in recent years and in an effort to recapture former glories we have enlisted an illustrious US songwriter, Desmond Child, for our 2013 entry. Surely we should use the skills of a British songwriter you cry? An Ed Sheeran, a Chris Martin? Think again. Just as the CVs of Sven and Fabio turned the heads of the FA for England manager, Child has form, and plenty of it.

He wrote 'Living on a Prayer’ and 'You Give Love a Bad Name' for Bon Jovi, not to mention a load of hits for Aerosmith and Cher. It is little wonder then he called the song 'Believe In Me'! We do Desmond, we do; now if only we can get a great rock singer to sing it. Enter Bonnie Tyler. 

Bonnie Tyler is no stranger to a worldwide audience of course, 'Total Eclipse of the Heart' is one of the 1980s power ballads and Child has written for her before. So, will the UK triumph this year? I don't think so. It's technically a perfectly good song, and it suits Tyler, but this is no 'Dude (Looks Like A Lady)' or 'Just Like Jesse James' but a sort of forgettable mid tempo country tinged ballad, reliant on a predictable four-chord loop in Ab Major for both verse and chorus (I V ii IV, for the record).

The song turns nicely to the flattened seventh, Gb, at the bridge, coinciding neatly with the lyric "What ya gonna do when the ship is sinking" but the answer to that appears to be - do not pass go, do not change key and return to chorus.  The song is a solid effort, but one that sadly that doesn't feel quite urgent or modern enough to win Eurovision. 

Denmark’s entry, ‘Only Teardrops’, is one of the early favourites this year and it sounds like a Rihanna-esque track but with a definite Eurovision feel. Here we have the same number of chords as the UK’s entry, four, but this time in minor key (Am) and with the kind of pummeling semi-quaver drum pattern in the chorus that just screams big production.

That's the beauty of Eurovision; it's not just the song but the artist, the performance and the staging too. This is a TV event after all, so it is probably best to simply enjoy the show, pick your favourite tune and hope it doesn't fall at the first. My tip? Russia's entry, 'What If'. This song has it all; two chord loops starting in a minor key in the verse and moving to the relative major key in the chorus, together with an uplifting message and a nice lyric.

You know where it's going, but then that's why we love Katy Perry, and there are similarities here. The final key change, up a minor third from A to C, signals the rousing finale before we get a harmonically beautiful cadence (Ab – Bb – C) to close the show. Yes, you've heard that before, at the end of 'With A Little Help From My Friends', no less. Seems fitting; Eurovision is certainly best enjoyed with friends and perhaps a small sweepstake. 

Steve Cooper

Peter Preston-Hough, Visiting Lecturer in War Studies at the University of Wolverhampton. 

70th Anniversary of the Dams Raid

The 16^th/17^th May 2013 marks the 70^th anniversary of RAF Bomber Command’s iconic raid on dams in the German Ruhr valley. New books, magazines, memorabilia are being marketed and the BBC has commissioned various radio and television programmes to commemorate this event.

It will be interesting to see when the 1954 film ‘The Dambusters’ is shown, and the number of times the stirring Dambusters march is played! What are we commemorating, though, and why 70 years on does the raid still evoke such interest?

The basic story of the raid is that a specially formed squadron, 617, equipped with Lancaster bombers and armed with Barnes Wallis’ ingenious weapon - codenamed ‘Upkeep’ - attacked three primary targets in the Ruhr. The Mӧhne and Eder were both breached, but the Sorpe was only damaged owing to its immensely strong design and the unsuitability of ‘Upkeep’ against its structure. There was an immense human cost for the raid. Around 1,600 people in the Ruhr valley were killed, of which around 600 were slave labourers. 617 Squadron lost eight Lancasters out of the nineteen despatched, with 53 aircrew perishing and only three taken prisoner. Many individuals will argue whether, given the human toll in the Ruhr, the event should be commemorated at all but that is a subject for another day.

Critics have pointed out that the raid was a failure, as the inability to breach the Sorpe together with the other dams did not cause the expected extent of damage to German war industry. However, other historians, notably John Sweetman, have shown that some German industry did not properly recover until August or September 1943, whilst agriculture there suffered for an even longer period.

However material damage is not always the significant result. Morale in Britain was given a boost by the subsequent publicity, and the photographic reconnaissance pictures publicised in newspapers were the first since the war began. The raid showed Bomber Command crews could accurately navigate to a small target in enemy territory and carry out a successful precision raid once there. The raid’s success was conveyed to Britain’s Allies, which helped to convince the Americans to concentrate on the war against Germany and altered Stalin’s doubts on the seriousness of the British bombing campaign.

Furthermore, work was delayed on the Atlantic Wall whilst the Dams were repaired, and many anti-aircraft guns were transferred from cities to defend German dams against further attack, so Upkeep’s success had a significant impact.  Afterwards, Wallis was held in high esteem and within a month orders were placed for his ‘earthquake’ bombs, the 12,000lb ‘Tallboy’ and 22,000lb ‘Grand Slam’. From mid-1944 ‘Tallboy’ alone was instrumental in sinking the battleship ‘Tirpitz’, breaking thick concrete U-Boat pen roofs, and V-Weapon construction and launch buildings in France.

The Dams raid has passed into legend and some of this is based on what was portrayed in the feature film and early books. For instance, Upkeep was not a bomb, but technically a depth charge.  “Bouncing depth charge” doesn’t have the same ring to it as “bouncing bomb” does however!

Historical facts such as these will probably not matter too much to people commemorating the event on 16^th May. Their imagination will be stirred by the audacious attack by specially trained aircrew, flying the large Lancaster at 210 mph at 60 feet at night to release a four ton cylinder which reached its target by bouncing across water. Even writing that sentence defies belief, and it is that human ingenuity and courage which will be remembered in Britain on May 16.

Peter Preston-Hough

Dorothy Hobson, Senior Lecturer and Course Leader in Contemporary Media

‘Turns out it does mean a lot!’ - Olivia Coleman accepting the BAFTA award for “Supporting Actress” in ‘Accused (Mo’s Story)’

Olivia Colman was the undoubted star of the 2013 BAFTA Television awards. Colman triumphed for her work in the serious drama ‘Accused (Mo’s Story)’ and the sitcom ‘Twenty Twelve’, and both gongs were well deserved. While it is easy to be blasé and pretend that award ceremonies don’t matter, Colman accepted her two awards with enthusiasm and excitement, and it’s clear that recognition from peers is still a big thing for actors and actresses.

Of course, when it comes to award ceremonies, decisions are subjective - collectively subjective – and sometimes some decisions cannot be praised but must be endured! I can’t comment on every category, but an interesting award was the gong for “Drama Series”. Presented by the Birmingham born actor David Harewood, and Damien Lewis, both stars of the excellent American series ‘Homeland’, the nod went to the BBC drama ‘Last Tango in Halifax’. How interesting it was that the leading actress in the series, Anne Reid, told the audience when accepting the award that it was about time the commissioners recognized that there could be love stories made about people aged 35 or over. Imagine!

Some categories were tight but perceived as being fairly awarded while others were obviously more contentious. Awards which for me were the correct choices included “Situation Comedy”, which was awarded to ‘Twenty Twelve’, the most brilliant satire we’ve seen on our screens for a number of years on television. The characters were sublime with every PR person we knew contributing a tiny share of the character played by Jessica Hynes. Shakespearean drama also fared well, with Simon Russell Beale winning for best “Supporting Actor” in ‘Henry IV Part 2’ and Ben Whishaw stealing the crown for “Best Actor” as ‘Richard II’.

It was good to see Clare Balding recognized for her strong contributions across many sports over her fantastic career. Clare is a consummate professional, and whatever sport she’s fronting she makes herself an expert in it before she begins and appears completely natural and unaffected in front of the camera.

Also fantastic to see was the BAFTA Fellowship awarded to Michael Palin. One of the funniest and, according to his best friend and fellow Python, Terry Jones, ‘The World’s Nicest Man’, I had a special reason to be delighted with his award. In March 1985 when ‘EastEnders’ was launched on BBC1, I appeared on the television discussion programme ‘Did You See..?’ with the novelist, David Lodge, and Michael himself. He was certainly very nice, but also the funniest man I have ever met. Making jokes and funny asides throughout the programme, it was an absolute privilege to appear with him.

For me, there were a few awards I was a little surprised about but that’s life! I thought the ‘London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony’ really should have won something. Spectacular, historically and artistically brilliant, with an energy and integrity to recognize so many aspects of British culture and people, it was surely not a programme to be over-looked. Similarly, the biggest global show at the moment, ‘Homeland’, also went away empty handed.

Light entertainment programmes played their part in the evening, with Graham Norton, Alan Carr and Steve Coogan all winning their respective categories. ‘Made in Chelsea’ took the “Reality and Constructed Factual” prize with a comment from one of its participants, Francis Boulle, that perfectly summed up “reality” TV: “Who would have thought you could win a BAFTA for being Posh?” Feel free to substitute your own words for one of the previous winners ‘The Only Way is Essex’!

So the BAFTAs are over for another year. Will I continue to watch awards ceremonies? Of course - I will be watching them for pleasure and for professional interest. I encourage my students to watch as many programmes as they can. Only by being steeped in your area of study can you ever hope to gain entry into the industry.

For a full list of the categories and their winners, please see: http://awards.bafta.org/award/2013/television

Dorothy Hobson

Andrew Lane, Professor of Sports and Exercise Psychology

"So Sir Alex Ferguson has retired. We’ve had “Fergie time", “hairdryers", the “Beckham’s boot”, and rows with other managers – Kevin Keegan and Rafa Benitez being the most memorable spats. When it’s all said and done however he leaves Manchester United as champions for a record 20^th time. So what comes next?

We are in shock at the moment; numbness and the realisation of what this means has not sunk in. When it does, people will start thinking, what next? What will happen?

Manchester United staff will start thinking about who is coming in next. In soccer, its common practice for the new manager to clear out a great deal of the existing structures; re-structuring and re-appointing. Soccer players are usually adaptive to change; however, long-term Manchester United players are used to Sir Alex. Rio Ferdinand and England come to mind. How many players will start considering their options, then? We might assume the big-name players are confident of their place in the team, but at big clubs like Manchester United, such players can be substitutes.

As I write, we can see that stories have already begun to emerge about the future of Wayne Rooney at the club. “Once bitten, twice shy” United fans might think about this one – it’s not the first time the Scouse striker has messed the club around over contracts.

There will be nervousness and anxiety at the club, from the players and the staff. Those feeling such emotions might thus try to change these emotions.

Some might try to say “It’ll be ok; Sir Alex is in the boardroom” and as such try to re-appraise the situation. However, what happens when they lose a couple of games? Manchester United lost at home to Chelsea at the weekend; would the incoming manager be booed off with calls for Sir Alex to come back ringing in his ears? Roy Hodgson found it hard at Liverpool with the legendary Kenny Dalglish in a managerial position, and the fans made their point clear. Hodgson, as good a manager as he is, didn’t last long.

Change brings nervousness and how these nerves are managed will be interesting times. It appears, at the time of writing, that David Moyes will be the next manager. The size of his job is incalculable. Making sure that the mental attitudes of the players are spot on is just the first challenge of many that he faces…"

Andy Lane

Michael Cunningham, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Politics Award Leader

The major talking point of the 2013 local elections was the rise of UKIP which gained 25% of the vote and has given rise to much speculation about the reasons for their success and their likely future impact.

UKIP has reaped the benefits of international and national events and has also been helped by contingent factors. In many countries, the international financial crisis and the associated austerity measures have given a boost to self-styled `anti-establishment’ or `outsider’ parties of which UKIP is one. 

In the national context, UKIP’s rise can be viewed against a backdrop of cynicism about the political `establishment’ fuelled by the expenses scandal, the main parties’ positions on Europe, and the perceived `softness’ on immigration underpinned by Labour’s miscalculation about the number of Polish immigrants last decade.

I would argue that Europe is particularly beneficial for UKIP because both main parties are disingenuous about the topic; they have consistently accepted the technocratic or functional argument for integration while engaging in domestic ‘Eurosceptic’ rhetoric to appease their electorates. Mrs Thatcher was one of the worst offenders; however, other Conservative and Labour leaders have also indulged in this practice.

A contingent factor in their favour is that because the Liberal Democrats are in the governing coalition, they are not the current recipients of protest votes which are now largely being given to UKIP.  The other factor which has helped them is the weakness of the British left.

In previous eras, one might have expected an international capitalist crisis or disillusionment with the “establishment” to have benefited the left. However, ideologically and organisationally the British left is very weak, as evidenced by the fact that its best-known figure is probably the self-regarding reality TV "star", George Galloway.

Social science tends to have a poor predictive record so I may be proved wrong. However, there are two reasons why UKIP’s rise might be checked. First, in relation to the next general election, the `first past the post’ system may encourage those who supported UKIP in the recent local election to vote Conservative, for fear of splitting the right-wing, anti-Labour vote.

Second, once an `outsider’ party gains seats, at whatever level of government, it has to do things and make decisions.  The facile adoption of anti-establishment purity no longer works.  This was graphically illustrated when the British National Party (BNP) gained local authority seats and demonstrated itself to be full of incompetents.

This is not to say that UKIP’s politics are identical; however the BNP employed a similar rhetoric of `outsider’ status. UKIP’s recent confusion and disarray over policy detail and the costing of policy suggests that it is not a credible party of government; there is more to government than being viscerally anti-European and being in favour of smoking in pubs.

Lastly, political realignments are very rare in English politics, though less so in British politics. It is nearly a century since the emergence of a new major force when the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as a governing party in English (and British) politics. Therefore, it would be a major surprise if UKIP emerged as a potential party of government.

Mike Cunningham

Deborah Orpin, Senior Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics

Memories of the MMR scare of about a decade ago had all but faded until news came of an outbreak of measles in Swansea. To prevent measles epidemics in other parts of the country, Public Health England has launched a vaccination catch-up campaign. They estimate that up to a million children aged 10 to 14 are at risk of catching measles because many of them were not vaccinated as babies owing to widespread fears that the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) could cause autism.

The idea that there might be a causal link between the measles vaccine and autism came from a research paper published in 1998 by a team working at the Royal Free Hospital. The paper investigated the cases of 12 children suffering from a form of autism and inflammatory bowel disease. In several of these children, the onset of the symptoms followed vaccination with MMR. The interesting thing to note is that the research paper clearly states that the study ‘did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described’ (Wakefield et al, 1998: 641).

So how did the idea that MMR could cause autism gain currency among the public? And how did it come to wield so much influence despite the fact that numerous studies found absolutely no evidence of such a link? The answer lies partly in the way in which health stories are represented in the media. As Boyce (2007) explains, journalists need to simplify for the public what are often complex scientific arguments and to turn them into engaging stories. So the MMR issue was often represented as the story of a maverick doctor, Andrew Wakefield, battling against the medical authorities and the government. Good journalist practice also involves presenting a balanced view of an issue. Thus, in reports on MMR, a quotation from a health professional or government minister reassuring the public of the vaccine’s safety would almost always be ‘balanced’ by a quotation from an anti- MMR voice. This created the impression that the scientific community was equally divided between those who thought the vaccine was safe and those who opposed its use.

But the answer also lies in differences in the ways in which ideas about cause and effect are expressed in scientific contexts and in other domains. Scientists typically make claims in a very tentative way. Even in the now discredited paper by Wakefield et al (1998), for example, suggestions that components of the MMR vaccine may have a causal connection with autism or bowel disease are not stated in highly certain terms. They say things such as ‘Rubella virus is associated with autism’ or ‘measles virus and measles vaccines have both been implicated as risk factors for Crohn’s disease’.

When scientific claims are reproduced in non-scientific contexts, subtle shifts in meaning can take place. Evidence from a corpus of texts from an online discussion forum reveals that, on the whole, the media at the time of the MMR scare tended to express uncertainty about Wakefield’s claims, as the following example illustrates: ‘Dr Wakefield and his colleagues claimed to have found a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism’. The word possible, here, implies that there may or may not be a link. However, in publications with an anti-MMR agenda, we often see something different. The opening line from a Daily Mail article, for example, reads: ‘The authorities still refuse to admit any link between autism and the MMR jab’. Here, the claim about a possible link is strengthened by prefacing it with the words the authorities still refuse to admit. Not only does the verb admit imply that the link is real, but the phrase still refuse implies that the authorities have known about the link for a long time and have concealed the knowledge.

When we look at the ways in which members of the public talk about the MMR-autism link, we find they too tend to express their ideas with a relatively strong degree of certainty. In the following example, a discussion forum contributor states explicitly that she believes there is a link, and she emphasises the strength of her belief by adding the word do: ‘I do believe there is a link between vaccination and autism spectrum disorder in some people’. Another forum contributor thinks that the cause-effect relationship between MMR and autism is almost certain, since she poses the question, ‘does this mean that the single vaccine may also cause autism?’ The following individual makes what is possibly the strongest claim of all: ‘MMR kills and causes autism’.

We can infer from the discourse surrounding the MMR controversy of ten years ago that the ways in which scientific claims are reformulated once they enter the wider public sphere can have far reaching implications.

Deborah Orpin

Dr Michael Whitehead, MSc Course leader Forensic and Molecular Biology

Today we live in an era where knowledge about DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) and our genetic code has a profound effect upon our society.

Why is this? Well, it may be through the capture and conviction of criminals based on DNA fingerprinting, for example, or by people surviving disease through genetic diagnosis and treatment.

It is therefore worth celebrating the 60th anniversary of the publication of James Watson and Francis Crick’s paper in which they describe the structure of DNA. The story of DNA goes back much further, however.

The first person to identify DNA was Friedrich Miescher, a German surgeon who obtained DNA (which he called nuclein) from bloody bandages in the 1870s. At the same time, luminaries such as Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel were proposing the ideas of evolution, inheritance and genetics. This led to an important search - which substance within the body was the genetic material?

It was not until the 1930s and 40s that work by Fred Griffith and Oswald Avery showed that DNA was the genetic material that carried inherited information. It was in the 1950s that Crick and Watson started working together at Cambridge. Using experiments performed by Erwin Chargaff, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, Watson and Crick were able to deduce the famous Double Helix structure of DNA in a small, two page publication entitled “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids”, published on April 25, 1953.

Since that time we have seen an explosion in DNA research and what we have been able to understand about ourselves and all life on earth. This year also marks another important DNA anniversary, without which we would not be entering the genomics era. 2013 is the 20th anniversary of Kary Mullis being awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993 “for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method.”

This test-tube based method meant tiny amounts of DNA could be turned into huge amounts of DNA very quickly; experiments which previously took months now take hours. This year is also the 10th anniversary of the publication of the complete Human Genome sequence (the letters A, G, C and T which encode the information providing a recipe for making each living thing).

In 1990 the Human Genome Project was started, to determine the entire DNA sequence of human beings. It took 13 years and cost nearly $3 billion. Today we can obtain the same sequence information from individual people in weeks, at the cost of a few thousand dollars. We can therefore find out about what susceptibility to diseases and cancers we have and how we respond to drug treatments.

Some of the information we may be afraid to learn, or it may prove essential to extend our lives. Either way, we are in the exciting time of Genomics and I’m sure discoveries over the next few years will present us with even more opportunities and challenges.

Dr Michael Whitehead

By Andrew Lane, Professor of Sports and Exercise Psychology

Luis Suarez is an outstanding footballer. He can make a chance out of almost nothing, score goals with either foot, or shows tremendous determination to win which can inspire his team mates. In contrast to this are a number of disgraceful moments; a blatant handball in the world cup ¼ final; the Evra incident, and now two biting incidences. The latest incident occurred during the Chelsea game on Sunday where he bit Branislav Ivanovic’s shoulder.

Why does someone do such a thing? Everyone gets frustrated and angry from time to time. Frustration occurs when we try to do something or achieve something and things get in our way. We tend to get angry when we perceive a sense of injustice – it’s not just about being stopped from achieving a goal, because this happens all the time and people just work harder or smarter. We examples of how Suarez works hard in games when Liverpool are losing, chasing down defenders, making runs, and creating goals; in many ways, the intensity of Luis Suarez’s game increases when Liverpool are losing. And this fighting spirit is just what the supporters like to see.

All of the above says that people get emotional and emotions influence thoughts and behaviours.  However, most people regulate or manage urges stemming anger. In some professions, this is a key part of the job; particularly service industries – flight check in staff; restaurant staff, soccer referees! We teach children to control their anger and manage it appropriately. We tell them there are consequences for inappropriate behaviour and so when the child gets angry and thinks about lashing out, he or she also remembers that this will lead to some kind of punishment. We teach children that it’s not acceptable to bite or hit someone else in an argument. When children are calm, they agree that this is inappropriate and also tend to agree that they would not like to happen to them. And so when a child gets angry and frustrated and considers lashing out in some way, he or she anticipates the consequences and curbs his or her behaviour.

This leads us to the question: what happened in Suarez’s mind? We know that he has done something like this before (for example, at Ajax). He received a 7-game ban and so presumably this information was in the background of his mind at the time of biting. His decision to bite again tends to suggest he was not appalled when he reflected on this incidence.

It’s hard to believe, but Suarez, at the time of the bite, must have thought he was doing something that was “kind of ok”, a bit like all the shirt pulling that occurs frequently and is partially penalised. He must have thought that he was biting in a way that would not be noticed – which seems a strange or unbelievable way of thinking, but it’s hard to think otherwise.

What next? If this was a child who bit another child in the playground, he would lose his playtime.