The NS Interview: Nancy Rothwell, vice-chancellor, Manchester University

“The cuts risk destroying things that can’t be brought back”

You must be delighted that two Manchester physicists have just won the Nobel Prize.
Everyone feels a great sense of pride. It means a huge amount that Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov's work has been recognised - it's the highest accolade in the scientific world. It's also a wonderful example of how the university supports research with major benefits for society.

Are you worried about how the forthcoming cuts will affect scientific research?
We are told that unprotected government departments will have, on average, a 25 per cent cut. We don't know how serious the situation will be, but I think it's going to be somewhere between very and exceptionally difficult.

Will the cuts cause long-term damage?
There is a danger of destroying things that can never be brought back, particularly in science. It means you have no PhD students coming through - but you don't just lose four or five years, you probably lose ten years, because of the knock-on effect.

Is there a risk of Britain falling behind?
Absolutely - many of our competitors are investing more in science, not just the US and Canada, but China, Germany, France. They are increasing their budgets at a time when it looks as if the budget in the UK will be declining.

Lord Browne's review of tuition fees is also due soon. Are you anxious about its impact?
It depends on the model - whether it's a graduate tax, an increase in fees or a lift of the cap. There is great concern that there will be significant groups of very talented students who won't be able to afford university.

Was there a moment in childhood when you became fascinated by science?
My father was a biology lecturer - when I was five or six, I saw pictures in his books. Apparently I wrote an essay then saying I wanted to be a scientist. But I nearly chose to go into art.

Do you think the division between art and science in our education system is too strict?
I don't like the separation - it leads to the view that arts are creative and interesting and science is difficult and logical. The best scientists are extremely creative.

You specialised in neuroscience. To what extent do we understand the brain?
We know the basic wiring, but more difficult is understanding how we think and remember.

Will this understanding improve?
With modern imaging, we can look at functioning inside a living, thinking brain. So we are starting to unravel, for example, which bit of the brain tells us the way home.

Why did you decide to run a university?
My research is still running, I'm not giving it up. But if you enjoy being a scientist, it's because you like discovering things and solving problems. And that's what universities are there for: to educate, discover and solve.

Are there barriers facing women in science?
Yes. To be successful you need to have an international network, and that isn't possible for women caring for children. For some women, the lack of role models is daunting. I've been surprised how many people have spoken to me about the importance of having a woman leading the university.

Why do scientists come under such attack?
One of the fundamental difficulties is that any good scientist will say that most things that we believe, we still can't say we're certain of. And we do change our minds sometimes.

Do scientists do enough to defend their work?
I think scientists are often poor at communication. I don't know what happens to us when we become scientists, but we forget how to use normal words.

Are you politically engaged?
I think it's important that a university is non-political. I'm not particularly political. I was as a student - everybody's an extreme left-wing student - but less so now.

What does God mean to you?
To me, personally, something abstract that I don't believe in, but to other people a great deal, and I recognise that.

Should science and religion be seen as opponents?
Science works on proof and testing hypotheses, and I don't think religion can do that.

Is there, or has there ever been, a plan?
My only ambitions were to become a professor and to be elected a fellow of the Royal Society. Everything else came along and I thought, "That looks like an interesting thing to do."

Is there anything you regret?
Lots of things. I used to be very impulsive. One thing I've learned is to stop and think.

Are we all doomed?
I hope not.

Defining Moments

1956 Born near Preston, Lancashire
1976 Obtains first-class BSc in physiology, University of London
1994 Is awarded a chair in physiology at Manchester University
2003 Wins Pfizer Research Prize
2004 Is elected a fellow of the Royal Society
2005 Made Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire
2010 Becomes vice-chancellor and president of Manchester University

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 18 October 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Who owns Britain?

Show Hide image

The age of loneliness

Profound changes in technology, work and community are transforming our ultrasocial species into a population of loners.

Our dominant ideology is based on a lie. A series of lies, in fact, but I’ll focus on just one. This is the claim that we are, above all else, self-interested – that we seek to enhance our own wealth and power with little regard for the impact on others.

Some economists use a term to describe this presumed state of being – Homo economicus, or self-maximising man. The concept was formulated, by J S Mill and others, as a thought experiment. Soon it became a modelling tool. Then it became an ideal. Then it evolved into a description of who we really are.

It could not be further from the truth. To study human behaviour is to become aware of how weird we are. Many species will go to great lengths to help and protect their close kin. One or two will show occasional altruism towards unrelated members of their kind. But no species possesses a capacity for general altruism that is anywhere close to our own.

With the possible exception of naked mole-rats, we have the most social minds of all mammals. These minds evolved as an essential means of survival. Slow, weak, armed with rounded teeth and flimsy nails in a world of fangs and claws and horns and tusks, we survived through co-operation, reciprocity and mutual defence, all of which developed to a remarkable degree.

A review paper in the journal Frontiers in Psychology observes that Homo economicus  might be a reasonable description of chimpanzees. “Outsiders . . . would not expect to receive offers of food or solicitude; rather, they would be fiercely attacked . . . food is shared only under harassment; even mothers will not voluntarily offer novel foods to their own infants unless the infants beg for them.” But it is an unreasonable description of human beings.

How many of your friends, colleagues and neighbours behave like chimpanzees? A few, perhaps. If so, are they respected or reviled? Some people do appear to act as if they have no interests but their own – Philip Green and Mike Ashley strike me as possible examples – but their behaviour ­attracts general revulsion. The news is filled with spectacular instances of human viciousness: although psychopaths are rare, their deeds fill the papers. Daily acts of kindness are seldom reported, because they are everywhere.

Every day, I see people helping others with luggage, offering to cede their place in a queue, giving money to the homeless, setting aside time for others, volunteering for causes that offer no material reward. Alongside these quotidian instances are extreme and stunning cases. I think of my Dutch mother-in-law, whose family took in a six-year-old Jewish boy – a stranger – and hid him in their house for two years during the German occupation of the Netherlands. Had he been discovered, they would all have been sent to a concentration camp.

Studies suggest that altruistic tendencies are innate: from the age of 14 months, children try to help each other, attempting to hand over objects another child can’t reach. At the age of two, they start to share valued possessions. By the time they are three, they begin to protest against other people’s violation of moral norms.

Perhaps because we are told by the media, think tanks and politicians that competition and self-interest are the defining norms of human life, we disastrously mischaracterise the way in which other people behave. A survey commissioned by the Common Cause Foundation reported that 78 per cent of respondents believe others to be more selfish than they really are.

I do not wish to suggest that this mythology of selfishness is the sole or even principal cause of the epidemic of loneliness now sweeping the world. But it is likely to contribute to the plague by breeding suspicion and a sense of threat. It also appears to provide a doctrine of justification for those afflicted by isolation, a doctrine that sees individualism as a higher state of existence than community. Perhaps it is hardly surprising that Britain, the European nation in which neoliberalism is most advanced, is, according to government figures, the loneliness capital of Europe.

There are several possible reasons for the atomisation now suffered by the supremely social mammal. Work, which used to bring us together, now disperses us: many people have neither fixed workplaces nor regular colleagues and regular hours. Our leisure time has undergone a similar transformation: cinema replaced by television, sport by computer games, time with friends by time on Facebook.

Social media seems to cut both ways: it brings us together and sets us apart. It helps us to stay in touch, but also cultivates a tendency that surely enhances other people’s sense of isolation: a determination to persuade your followers that you’re having a great time. FOMO – fear of missing out – seems, at least in my mind, to be closely ­associated with loneliness.

Children’s lives in particular have been transformed: since the 1970s, their unaccompanied home range (in other words, the area they roam without adult supervision) has declined in Britain by almost 90 per cent. Not only does this remove them from contact with the natural world, but it limits their contact with other children. When kids played out on the street or in the woods, they quickly formed their own tribes, learning the social skills that would see them through life.

An ageing population, family and community breakdown, the decline of institutions such as churches and trade unions, the switch from public transport to private, inequality, an alienating ethic of consumerism, the loss of common purpose: all these are likely to contribute to one of the most dangerous epidemics of our time.

Yes, I do mean dangerous. The stress response triggered by loneliness raises blood pressure and impairs the immune system. Loneliness enhances the risk of depression, paranoia, addiction, cognitive decline, dem­entia, heart disease, stroke, viral infection, accidents and suicide. It is as potent a cause of early death as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and can be twice as deadly as obesity.

Perhaps because we are in thrall to the ideology that helps to cause the problem, we turn to the market to try to solve it. Over the past few weeks, the discovery of a new American profession, the people-walker (taking human beings for walks), has caused a small sensation in the media. In Japan there is a fully fledged market for friendship: you can hire friends by the hour with whom to chat and eat and watch TV; or, more disturbingly, to pose for pictures that you can post on social media. They are rented as mourners at funerals and guests at weddings. A recent article describes how a fake friend was used to replace a sister with whom the bride had fallen out. What would the bride’s mother make of it? No problem: she had been rented, too. In September we learned that similar customs have been followed in Britain for some time: an early foray into business for the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, involved offering to lease her posh friends to underpopulated weddings.



My own experience fits the current pattern: the high incidence of loneliness suffered by people between the ages of 18 and 34. I have sometimes been lonely before and after that period, but it was during those years that I was most afflicted. The worst episode struck when I returned to Britain after six years working in West Papua, Brazil and East Africa. In those parts I sometimes felt like a ghost, drifting through societies to which I did not belong. I was often socially isolated, but I seldom felt lonely, perhaps because the issues I was investigating were so absorbing and the work so frightening that I was swept along by adrenalin and a sense of purpose.

When I came home, however, I fell into a mineshaft. My university friends, with their proper jobs, expensive mortgages and settled, prematurely aged lives, had become incomprehensible to me, and the life I had been leading seemed incomprehensible to everyone. Though feeling like a ghost abroad was in some ways liberating – a psychic decluttering that permitted an intense process of discovery – feeling like a ghost at home was terrifying. I existed, people acknowledged me, greeted me cordially, but I just could not connect. Wherever I went, I heard my own voice bouncing back at me.

Eventually I made new friends. But I still feel scarred by that time, and fearful that such desolation may recur, particularly in old age. These days, my loneliest moments come immediately after I’ve given a talk, when I’m surrounded by people congratulating me or asking questions. I often experience a falling sensation: their voices seem to recede above my head. I think it arises from the nature of the contact: because I can’t speak to anyone for more than a few seconds, it feels like social media brought to life.

The word “sullen” evolved from the Old French solain, which means “lonely”. Loneliness is associated with an enhanced perception of social threat, so one of its paradoxical consequences is a tendency to shut yourself off from strangers. When I was lonely, I felt like lashing out at the society from which I perceived myself excluded, as if the problem lay with other people. To read any comment thread is, I feel, to witness this tendency: you find people who are plainly making efforts to connect, but who do so by insulting and abusing, alienating the rest of the thread with their evident misanthropy. Perhaps some people really are rugged individualists. But others – especially online – appear to use that persona as a rationale for involuntary isolation.

Whatever the reasons might be, it is as if a spell had been cast on us, transforming this ultrasocial species into a population of loners. Like a parasite enhancing the conditions for its own survival, loneliness impedes its own cure by breeding shame and shyness. The work of groups such as Age UK, Mind, Positive Ageing and the Campaign to End Loneliness is life-saving.

When I first wrote about this subject, and the article went viral, several publishers urged me to write a book on the theme. Three years sitting at my desk, studying isolation: what’s the second prize? But I found another way of working on the issue, a way that engages me with others, rather than removing me. With the brilliant musician Ewan McLennan, I have written a concept album (I wrote the first draft of the lyrics; he refined them and wrote the music). Our aim is to use it to help break the spell, with performances of both music and the spoken word designed to bring people together –which, we hope, will end with a party at the nearest pub.

By itself, our work can make only a tiny contribution to addressing the epidemic. But I hope that, both by helping people to acknowledge it and by using the power of music to create common sentiment, we can at least begin to identify the barriers that separate us from others, and to remember that we are not the selfish, ruthless beings we are told we are.

“Breaking the Spell of Loneliness” by Ewan McLennan and George Monbiot is out now. For a full list of forthcoming gigs visit:

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood