Cambridge University Reporter


Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 8 November 2005. A Discussion was held in the Senate-House. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor A. D. Cliff was presiding, with both Senior Proctors and a Junior Proctor, the Registrary, and seven other persons present.

The following Reports were discussed:

Report of the General Board, dated 12 October 2005, on the merger of the Departments of Anatomy and Physiology into a single Department of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience (p. 64).

Professor W. A. HARRIS:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the merger of the Anatomy Department and the Physiology Department, first suggested more than 20 years ago, is a good thing. The academic staff from both Departments voted overwhelmingly in favour of merger, the Council of the School of Biological Sciences endorsed the merger, and General Board strongly supported it. I do not think there is a need to speak further in favour of the merger per se here. The potential advantages in terms of education, research, and financial stability make this an overwhelmingly promising venture for the University.

The academic staff in the Department are particularly excited about consolidating our interests in three areas of research: Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience, and this brings me to the issue of the name of the new Department, which is what I would like to speak about today.

As present Head of Department for Anatomy and future Head of the merged Department, I called a meeting of academic staff of the two Departments in July 2005, at which 47 were in attendance - an excellent turn out. There, the first item on the agenda was the naming of the merged Department. This issue promised to be a thorny one given the amount of mental energy, with over two years of deliberations, that had already been expended on this topic in Cambridge, and from knowledge of how difficult and divisive this had been at various other universities that had faced similar mergers in the UK and other countries.

We first considered simply fusing the names of the two Departments into 'Anatomy and Physiology.' At this early stage of the meeting opinion was divided but, as the discussion progressed, it became clear that many felt 'Anatomy and Physiology' to be a poor choice. Principally this was because the word 'Anatomy' conjures up for many an image of cadavers and dissection, which does not reflect our contemporary research into the molecular basis of developmental processes and neuroscience. This is an important factor when we are trying to attract the best researchers and most able graduate students in a highly competitive environment.

At this meeting, we had an open and frank discussion of many possibilities and several potential names were proposed. There was a series of informal votes on the various contenders. After a series of names were proposed and discarded, we voted for the top runners. It was extremely gratifying that a strong consensus emerged in favour of 'Physiology, Neuroscience, and Development' (the order was subsequently changed to 'Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience' to avoid some unfortunate acronyms).

Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience are our core research strengths. In each of these overlapping areas, there are more than 20 academic staff that are now working together to create strong research synergies and new opportunities. This name not only reflects our research, but it also describes what we teach at Part II, a practice common to most Departmental names in the School.

Subsequent to that vote, and in full knowledge of the large objection to 'Anatomy and Physiology', and the fact that this name ran third in the voting, a few members of the Department have told me that they nevertheless would have liked the word Anatomy to be retained in the name of the new Department, largely because of the great tradition of anatomical teaching in this University. I have great sympathy for this tradition, and I would like to put on record that I have told the individuals concerned, and in fact the entire academic staff, that we are working to highlight Anatomy on our Web pages, in our public profile, and in the education division of the new Department, which will have Anatomy in its title. We are also keen to promote and publicize that our Department is the home of excellent preclinical Part I training in Human and Veterinary Anatomy.

When the proposal was put to them, members of the Council of the School of Biological Sciences supported 'Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience' as the new name in its October meeting.

Paraphrasing the words of one of my new colleagues, I believe very strongly that the new Department should be allowed to decide on what to call itself. A name must be adopted that is appropriate for the Department. The proposed name is the best option because it reflects the combined strengths of the merged Department. One of our key aspirations is to build up our research. Therefore, as we embark on restructuring our Department, it is important to start with a new name that accurately reflects the scope and breadth of this research.

Dr D. J. CHIVERS:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I have never spoken in the Senate House in my 35 years as an University Teaching Officer. That I do so now reflects how strongly I feel about these issues, for so many reasons. I am the tip of an iceberg of discontent! My colleagues, for various reasons, are reluctant at present to show their faces above the water.

We have no problems with the bulk of the Report; indeed we fully support and welcome the merger proposals. What we find so offensive is the proposed name. What is in a name you may ask, to which we reply 'everything'! The name is the external embodiment of the whole, in this case the Department. As we approach the octocentenary we need to modernize, but we need to maintain the best traditions, especially as we teach Anatomy to nigh on 400 medical and veterinary students in each of their first two years, and Anatomy has a long and strong tradition of about 500 years in the University.

Anatomy was first taught and examined in 1528 and it became a statutory requirement for students of medicine in 1549. Such teaching continued in the Colleges through the 17th century. The first Professorship of Anatomy in Great Britain was established in 1707, and the first Anatomical School was opened in 1716. The first regular anatomy course started in 1814. Anatomy must stay in the name of the Department, especially as many rich doctors and vets may be deterred from giving at this important time for the University, by the loss of such a grand old name. Anatomy will have been central to their training, very memorable perhaps because of a love-hate relationship! Anatomy (structure) is fundamental to every 'modern' physiological (functional) study.

In a Faculty with Departments of Pathology, Pharmacology, Psychology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Zoology, etc., several of which research developmental biology, neuroscience, and physiology, it is ludicrous and arrogant to rename Anatomy and Physiology as Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience (PDN). Or is this the thin end of the wedge and other Departments will soon change their names according to their current research interests, and then, as they change, change the name of the Department again? Maybe that is why the suggestion was approved by the Council of the School of Biological Sciences, and the General Board. Hopefully Council will show more sense, especially as 'daft' is an epithet increasingly being used around the University. It is truly ridiculous, and not what the Statutes and Ordinances should be about. The Regent Masters may have to be called upon to protect our powerful tradition and the future.

The place for the recognition of different research branches is at the next level down, with Divisions and Groups, as happens in all other Departments. Indeed, we already have five such Divisions identified, or 'themes', as I now understand them to be called, repeating in part the proposed name for the Department. It has evoked mirth inside and, more worryingly, outside the University, which will hardly create an image to which new graduate students will be attracted! It was not a democratic decision, which is why so many are disheartened. We want a secret ballot, with all the issues explained. The members of the two Departments should have the main say in the new name, but they have to appreciate the wider issues, the consequences for the University as an whole.

That the Faculty Board of Veterinary Medicine has not been consulted is inexcusable. At a delicate time for recruiting new veterinary students, such a name can only have an adverse and confusing effect. Surely the same is true for medical students? They need to be reassured that they will receive basic training in Anatomy and Physiology, and this needs formal recognition. We are now trying to recruit two first-rate clinical anatomists - how on earth can we do this successfully in the current situation? The name 'Anatomy' has to remain to protect the teaching of the professional components of anatomy, but there is more than one way to skin a cat!

A major concern is the haphazard and obscure way in which the new name was derived. The original suggestion was for Anatomy and Physiology. Then there was a vote in early July at a fairly well-attended meeting of the two Departments, when PDN emerged as the favourite. We were told in August that PDN was unlikely to be accepted, so we were asked by e-mail to 'vote' for alternative names. The proposed name emerged, with Anatomy and Physiology as the third choice after Physiological Sciences. This was a surprise to many, given the e-mail criticisms of PDN and the apparent widespread support for Anatomy and Physiology, at least as a compromise name. In Physiology PDN came bottom of their latest poll. We are mystified as to why the Faculty Board and School of Biological Sciences approved PDN and we cannot accept such a botched job! Now we urge for a secret single-transferable vote within the two Departments, with Anatomy and Physiology as one of the choices. A show of hands of medical and veterinary students in a Physiology lecture recently yielded about 85% in favour of Anatomy and Physiology!

I have known some weird decisions in my time, but never anything as ridiculous and illogical as this, going against, as it does, the best values and traditions of this great University. As we approach the University's octo-centenary, Anatomy is approaching significant bi-, ter- quater- and quinque-centenaries! This is not the time to abolish Anatomy. Even Oxford and University College London have kept Anatomy in their Department names. It is very sad for me that my Department is trying to promote something so wrong, and in such a messy way. I must beg Council to show signs of sanity on this issue. Let us not delay the merger, but let good sense prevail in the choice of a name. I must make way now, in case Masters of the Judge Institute or Departments of Geography, Economics, or Land Economy wish to comment on Development issues!

Professor G. J. BURTON:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the merger of two Departments is a major undertaking, and like any marriage it should not be entered into lightly. Few in the University are likely to have experienced the process, and so it is only natural that there may be concerns about loss of identity, amongst other issues. I have not experienced a full merger before, but I have been involved in the assimilation of a Sub-Department. When I joined the University I joined the Sub-Department of Veterinary Anatomy, and in the early 1990s found myself Director of that unit.

Due to financial constraints, and changes in the balance between teaching and research, it became increasingly clear that the Sub-Department was an anachronism. In 1993 we took the opportunity to integrate it fully into the Department of Anatomy, but equivalent concerns about loss of identity were voiced at that time. Did suppression of the Sub-Department mean that the teaching of veterinary anatomy was compromised in anyway? No, on the contrary, teaching was to my mind strengthened by the establishment of the post of the Clinical Veterinary Anatomist. As someone who has been involved in teaching anatomy during most of his professional career I believe the proposed merger of the Departments of Anatomy and Physiology offers similar opportunities to strengthen our mutual teaching for the future. Structure and function are so intimately inter-linked that they are taught together in most universities across the world. As a Co-Chair of the Teaching Committee of the new Department I can assure the University of our commitment to continue to provide teaching in functional anatomy of the highest level. This will happen whether or not the word 'Anatomy' appears in the Department's name, in the same way that the Department of Anatomy has continued to teach veterinary anatomy since the loss of the Sub-Department that bore that title over a decade ago.

Report of the General Board, dated 12 October 2005, on the establishment of a Herchel Smith Professorship of Molecular Biology (p. 67).

No comments were made on this Report.