The new Data Analytics and Social Statistics master’s degree will begin in September 2023 and promises to be a pioneering course that prioritises data veracity and analysis.

, Course Director, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Statistics and the chair of the Social Statistics Section of the Royal Statistical Society, says:

“In a time of disinformation campaigns, this master’s is well-placed to promote data literacy and inform the next generation of data scientists with the skills to tackle such issues.

This master’s will enable students to confidently analyse real-world data by using the latest statistical software and methods. The course covers all the stages of working with data from data collection, importing, wrangling and visualisation to analysis and presentation.”

As data continues to improve in scope and specificity, we need to develop the next generation of data scientists to harness this information effectively and create actionable insights that will improve our world. 

The course was developed to help address key world challenges, such as inequality and data privacy, and to produce impact in various contexts including policymaking, education, healthcare, medicine and voluntary work.

, Lecturer in Social Statistics, says: “Using real-world social data can really make a big impact in terms of social problems. It helps with bigger picture, if more people understand the context of the data and how it’s used, people can create an impact.”

The new Master’s in Data Analytics and Social Statistics was designed with these issues at the forefront and with the need to combat fake news and disinformation in mind. Students will be taught by experts in social sciences and data sciences, working with real-world data in this highly practical course.

Tailored for busy working professionals, this master’s is 100% online, allowing students to easily fit it into their schedules amongst their other commitments. Aimed at individuals from industries as wide as education, health, business analytics and non-profits, this course will empower students to leverage data for predictive purposes.

Prospective students will also be able to apply for an Equity and Merit Scholarship, created to promote the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. These scholarships are open to applicants from Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe with the potential to deliver solutions to encourage sustainable development.

Based firmly in practical techniques such as data analysis using R, students already working within data analysis will be able to apply their learning directly into their daily work. Newcomers to the field will be able to upskill and use this degree as a conversion to a new career.

Topics covered in this course include data visualisation, statistical modelling, survey methods, research skills and more.

This course was specifically designed to help expand data literacy and encourage students to question the purpose of how statistics are presented and why. The context of data, including how it is used, is a key focus.

With the dissertation, students on this course can focus on a contemporary research topic of interest to showcase their quantitative and analytical skills. Students will be taught by researchers who conduct these activities in their professional work, further enhancing the practical and real-world dimension of the course.

Dr Alexandru Cernat comments:

“The dissertation will help bring all these skills together to create an analytics report or research paper that answers real-world problems using advanced statistical methods and complex data.”

The first class will begin in September 2023. Learn more about the new postgraduate course in Data Analytics and Social Statistics.

The English Premier League (EPL) is the most in the world and one of the most of any kind. But the benefits may be relatively skewed towards people who live in London. Not only has the UK capital had more clubs per fan in the EPL than any other region since the league was created in the 1992/93 season, but their fans have to pay less to travel to see their clubs play away matches.

Over the 26 years the league has been in operation, the number of EPL clubs based in London has remained relatively stable at approximately six. Meanwhile, the number of clubs from different regions has fluctuated. The largest reduction was observed in the north of England where the number of EPL clubs fell from ten out of 20 in 1995/96 (when the EPL was reduced from 22 to 20) to seven out of 20 in 2018/19. There was large variation in participation from teams in the Midlands or the east of England and a small increase in the number of clubs from the south and Wales, with the participation of Brighton & Hove Albion FC, AFC Bournemouth and Cardiff City in 2018/19.

If you dig deeper, you can see that the northwest and, especially, Yorkshire & Humber are the biggest losers over time (Figure 2) – although Leeds United and Sheffield United are currently sitting pretty on the Championship (the second tier of English football) table and may well join the EPL in 2019/20. This implies that there may be stronger regional representation, with Huddersfield (Yorkshire) and Fulham (London) looking destined for relegation to the Championship.

If you adjust this calculation for population size (assuming one club per approximately 2.5m people – distributing fairly 20 clubs across around 51m people), the north of England and London were – and still are – the only two regions punching above their weight. But you can also see a change over time as London has surpassed the north in terms of “over-representation” of clubs from the region. The north’s losses have benefited the south and Wales. Once again, drilling down into lower level regions, it becomes clear that the north-west is the only region comparable to London (Figure 3).

For example, in the 2018/19 EPL season, there were six clubs from London (“observed”) and based on a population around 8,200,000 people from the 2011 Census we would expect around three clubs (“expected”). Meanwhile the north-west of England has a population of around 7.5m so, again, you would expect around three clubs – but there are five in the EPL.

Strain of the train

We decided to work out how much things were skewed in favour of London-based clubs and their fans. We calculated how much it costs for fans to follow their clubs on all away EPL fixtures, picking an arbitrary date: Saturday November 3, 2018. We used the most common kick-off time of 3pm and obtained rail and car travel estimates from Google maps and the national rail enquiries website. Unsurprisingly, following Newcastle United, in the northeast, was the most expensive choice – each committed Geordie had to spend around £2,500 on rail fares to attend all of the club’s away matches.

Bournemouth, on the south coast of England, Cardiff City in Wales and Huddersfield Town in Yorkshire were next in line – their fans had to spend more than £1,700. At the other end of the scale, fans of London clubs such as Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal faced an average cost of around £1,000. Fans of Liverpool and 91ֱ�� clubs had to spend around £1,400 and £1,200, respectively.

In total, rail fares for Newcastle United fans to attend all 19 away matches were in excess of £6.5m (accounting for away fan capacity and assuming sellout crowds). This is a clear outlier, reflecting Newcastle’s remoteness in relation to other clubs – although rail travel time for Novocastrians was better than expected. This at least reflects good services and connections – better than for Bournemouth, Cardiff and Burnley, for example, considering the distances.

Rail costs per mile further demonstrate a variation – Leicester fans, in particular, have the right to feel particularly aggrieved, with cost per mile travelled to or from London being 0.58p and to or from everywhere else 0.52p (averages for all other cities/towns, excluding London, were 0.43p and 0.47p, respectively).

Interesting point: for Bournemouth and Southampton fans, a return train ticket to London is slightly more expensive than for London-based fans travelling in the opposite direction.

In reality, all these costs are underestimates, since televised matches are played at times that make the lives of travelling fans very difficult – it may be impossible to get a direct train and an overnight stay may be essential, further adding to the costs. And these additional costs are likely to be higher for non-London supporters, since services outside London tend to be less frequent, while overnight stays in London are more expensive.

Level playing field

It becomes evident that football fans have to bear a disproportional cost in time and money, supporting an industry that makes massive profits. So, what can be done? Travelling fans are effectively sports “visitors” and should be treated with reciprocal respect, with more consideration given to televised matches and the distances fans have to travel.

The EPL could also acknowledge the travelling costs for away fans and offer financial support to clubs in a similar way to how broadcast and central income is distributed. This would allow each club to consider a ticket pricing strategy for its own fans or support travelling arrangements. Perhaps clubs could consider selling a bundle product which would include both match and rail ticket. Alternatively (or in addition), the government or football institutions could negotiate fairer “fixed” rail prices.

But it’s not all down to geography, as infrastructure also plays its part. London is at the centre of the biggest sports investments which have made the capital the natural host for national football events. It seems unfair that finals and FA Cup semi-finals and finals are hosted in London.

Wembley, the “headquarters” of English football, has historically been an integral part of the game in England and is recognised as a global football trademark. But always having cup finals there increases the time and expense for supporters of non-London clubs that are successful in these competitions. Perhaps the region of the finalists should be considered before a venue was decided.

This imbalance is a problem for the EPL as it may have implications for its attractiveness and for generating revenue overall. And, as the so-called “people’s sport”, it’s surely a problem that this emphasis in favour of London and London-based clubs makes life harder for fans with less money to travel to see their clubs play.

Football is one of the most loved sports in the UK and the world, bringing together families and friends over a number of generations. It’s a societal link of togetherness. It shouldn’t give an unfair advantage to London or lead loyal supporters to poverty.

, Principal Academic, and , Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?
To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons , the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be . Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.

It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer , and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen thenorth-south divide.

, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Facebook is not alone in this respect. There appears to be a trend among newly-listed, mostly high-growth, firms to have these corporate governance structures that provide shareholders with weak rights . The dual class share structure, as in Facebook’s case, is only one of several measures to ensure that the founding member team remains in power.

As well as Facebook, companies that have established these sorts of governance mechanisms include Berkshire Hathaway, Expedia, FitBit, Ford, Google (Alphabet), GoPro, Hyatt Hotels, Snap, . The main defence of this governance measure, used by the founders or family heirs of these firms, is that it allows the companies to take a long-term view and make investment decisions that may not necessarily yield results in the short run.

But the recent Facebook scandal also highlights that these corporate governance mechanisms appear to make firms immune to calls for change, particularly if the leadership of the firm is affected.

Good vs bad governance

Shareholders are the main providers of capital for publicly listed companies. In return, they receive a variety of rights, such as voting at the annual general meeting and electing the directors who sit on the board.

that firms in which shareholders have many opportunities to raise their voice tend to perform better than firms with weak shareholder rights. Hence, firms with strong shareholder rights are often considered “good” corporate governance firms. Firms with weak shareholder rights are typically referred to as “bad” corporate governance firms.

Facebook might benefit from giving shareholders more say. focal point / Shutterstock.com

This is, however, a very simplified way of describing things. There is no blueprint for good corporate governance as every firm is likely to have different needs, and these also change .

Yet, there is little a controversy about the fact that when there is little opportunity for existing shareholders or outside activist investors to influence things, managers and directors can become entrenched and make decisions that could harm the business – and therefore shareholders. And companies where the board of directors can make decisions without fear of being replaced “dictatorship firms”.

Pros and cons of dictatorship

As it turns out, under certain conditions, dictatorship firms may actually perform well. Recent that in order to foster innovation, reward for long-term success and job security are important. The way that dictatorship firms are set up facilitates this.

Data also that dictatorship firms can increase company value by allowing it to take a long-term view. Hence, shareholders provide capital to dictatorship firms by trusting the skills and vision of the founder and leadership team to identify, invest in, and manage projects that guarantee continual high future growth.

But dictatorship-style corporate governance can become problematic in three scenarios. First, when growth and innovation slow down. This contradicts one of the main arguments in favour of dictatorship firms – that their long-term focus fosters innovation and that this is associated with high growth. But when growth does slow down, the firm will have fewer investment opportunities.

Plus, lower spending tends to mean higher future cash holdings and academic evidence that as companies accumulate more cash, they tend to make worse investment decisions. Hence, in those firms, it becomes more important to monitor how capital is spent and to consider paying out more to shareholders.

A second problematic situation for dictatorship firms is how to handle succession – something Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, . As Musk puts it: the dual class structure can be taken to an extreme “where one class basically doesn’t count”. That’s the public shareholders. And, although possible, it is rare that the children of the founders are the right people to continue running the firm (which is a common line of succession in a dictatorship firm). Hence, there needs to be a path towards a single share class so that control is not passed on via dictatorship.

The third problematic scenario for dictatorship firms is when a dramatic change in the course of action of the company is required – particularly in response to scandals. Since 2010, Facebook has had (excluding the Cambridge Analytica scandal). In a company with strong shareholder rights, it is likely that a change in the executive leadership team would have happened by now.

Not all hope for better corporate governance is lost, however. The ride-hailing app company Uber provides an example of how change , despite having an entrenched leadership team. After several scandals emerged at the end of 2017, its board made former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick step down and revoked his super-voting rights, . Facebook is yet to make similar moves but it would create a more democratic governance structure if it did so.

, Lecturer in Finance,

This article was originally published on . Read the .

,

Primary care is . Funding of general practice has not risen in line with the being placed upon it. Patients are and recruitment and retention of GPs is a big problem. While I strongly advocate for more primary care funding, this needs to be done in an equitable manner, with resources going to the patients and areas that need them the most.

Since 2004, most funding for general practices in England has been calculated using a method known as the . This method of distributing funds opens up a north-south divide and sees more cash going to areas with the least need. Practices in the north of England are deprived of vital resources while practices in areas such as London are .

The formula, although based on common sense principles, is now outdated and not fit for purpose. Successive governments have but no alternative has been introduced. To ease the stress on the NHS and ensure the right resources get to the right people, the method of funding primary care needs to overhauled.

How the formula works

The Carr-Hill formula uses a number of factors to calculate how much money a practice should receive. , the number of newly registered patients, how rural a practice is and whether the practice is located in London. It also includes a measure of how healthy the practice population is.

However, the calculation for measuring the health of the practice population is too simplistic and does not reflect reality. Rural practices, and those located in London, receive a higher proportion of funds because their locations are deemed to be more costly to practice from. This is partially due to perceived higher staffing costs in London and remoteness from hospital services in rural areas. But that these factors combine to skew the formula and divert funds away from areas with sicker patients. Our analysis shows that areas with the highest levels of ill health are not always the best funded. This is because of the simplistic measure of illness in the formula and the weighting given to factors such as being in London.

How it could work

We used publicly available data to evaluate if primary care funding in England matched health needs. The team examined data from 7,779 GP practices in England, covering almost 57m people (99% of the population). Unlike the measure of illness in the Carr-Hill formula, we devised a method of measuring illness based on what chronic conditions patients have recorded with their GPs. This method is much more sophisticated than the basic measure of health needs used by the Carr-Hill formula. By linking funding per person with the overall health needs for recorded chronic conditions, our research shows that current arrangements for GP practices are unreliable.

The work illustrates that practices in London and rural areas tend to receive a disproportionately high level of funding in comparison to the health needs of the populations that they serve.

‘Ghost patients’

In addition to the London bias intrinsically present in the Carr-Hill formula, a second piece of research by our team demonstrated that the presence of “ghost patients” on the books of GP practices may be exacerbating the . The census – done every ten years – is taken as the definitive measure of the English population. However, there are roughly 2m more patients registered with GPs in England than there are on the English census. By looking at registration with practices in comparison to the census population we were able to ascertain certain areas and demographic factors that were linked to higher levels of over-registration.

Our analysis showed that London has considerably higher levels of patients registered with GPs, in comparison to citizens recorded on the census, compared to the rest of England. On average, London practices have 6% more patients on their lists than local census data suggests would live in the practice area. This compares with an average over-registration level of 3.9% for the entire English population.

Other factors linked to over-registration levels were higher levels of non-white British population, elderly populations and greater proportion of females. The reasons behind over-registration are not fully clear but our analysis indicated one cause could be patients that have been registered with a GP and have then left the country. Moving areas, and registering with a new GP, would trigger removal from an existing practice list. However, there is no commonly followed procedure for removing a patient from a practice list when they leave the country. London has a highly international, transient population and this could partially explain why it has more “ghost” patients.

Numerous calls have been made over the last decade for the allocation of primary care funding to be changed and it is expected to be this year.

Our work is evidence that the current arrangements are unjust and need changing. The method that sees extra funding allocated to rural or London based practices needs to be reviewed, as does the way in which the health of populations is measured. If these changes aren’t made then the north-south divide will widen and those patients and practices who need the funding most will continue to miss out.

, GP and In-Practice Fellow,

This article was originally published on . Read the .

Life Sciences Minister George Freeman will today open the new home to the of the Farr Institute at The University of Manchester, creating a North of England hub for some of the world’s best digital and health research.

Vaughan House will be one of the leading venues in the country to develop new technologies that can empower patients to understand and take control over their own healthcare through smartphones, wearable devices and healthcare records.

From citizen science experiments such as (arthritis and weather) to NHS-linked projects such as (mental health symptoms and medication), HeRC is helping to connect citizens, patients and care-services for better prevention and care through technology.

Academic, healthcare and business leaders have welcomed the minister to see how 91ֱ�� is leading the way in the digital health revolution.

George Freeman will also endorse Greater 91ֱ�� Academic Health Science Network’s project at CityLabs. The project is linking data across different health care organisations to provide an innovative solution to improving both direct clinical care and how patients access information about their healthcare.  He will also see how the 91ֱ�� Science Partnership is building a new concentration of businesses at the junction of NHS and University sites to incubate growth in the digital health sector.

Life Sciences Minister George Freeman MP said: “It is fantastic to see 91ֱ�� playing a central role in developing new 21st century innovations, supported by our annual investment of £1bn through the National Institute for Health Research. By shifting the digital power to patients we are allowing them to monitor their own health through things like wearable devices and apps.

“The Academic Health Science Network is helping to drive forward the Northern Powerhouse in 91ֱ�� which is supporting the local needs of the health and social care services.”

Ian Greer, Vice-President and Dean of Medical and Human Science Faculty at The University of Manchester said:  “Vast amounts of data are collected every day by health care organisations across Greater 91ֱ��. Used together and responsibly, this is a mine of information which can improve public services, develop new treatments and save time and money.

“Greater 91ֱ�� is a leader in this emerging field, so we were very happy that the minister is speaking to us and learn how what we are doing here can be applied further afield.”

Notes for editors

For information on photos and the opening of Vaughan House contact Stephen Melia, Communication Lead, Health eResearch Centre, Tel: 0161 306 7876 / 07557 310 213

For interviews with George Freeman contact Dan Palmer, Senior Press Officer, Department of Health Tel: 0207 7210 5301 / 07900 135 983

The , a member of the prestigious Russell Group, is the UK’s largest single-site university with 38,600 students. It has 20 academic schools and hundreds of specialist research groups undertaking pioneering, multi-disciplinary teaching and research of worldwide significance. The University is one of the country’s major research institutions, rated fifth in the UK in terms of ‘research power’ (REF 2014), and has had no fewer than 25 Nobel laureates either work or study there. The University had an annual income of £1 billion in 2014/15. Visit www.manchester.ac.uk

The Health eResearch Centre (HeRC) is delivering large scale, population wide health research by harnessing the power of information and technology. Led by The University of Manchester and bringing together research excellence across the North of England (in partnership with the universities of Lancaster, Liverpool and York) the Health eResearch Centre is increasing the pace of progress in the UK’s health sector by turning under-used health information into new knowledge. For more information please visit #datasaveslives

91ֱ�� Science Partnerships (MSP) is a 91ֱ�� based public-private partnership and the UK's largest science park operator. It provides the right environments for innovation to flourish - supporting the growth of companies in the biomedical, ICT, industrial technologies, and digital/creative sectors, ranging in size from start-ups to EU HQs an international centres of R&D excellence. It's network of connections between innovators, thinkers, investors and entrepreneurs brings businesses and people together to transform ideas into commercial reality. MSP's shareholders are Bruntwood Ltd, The University of Manchester, 91ֱ�� Metropolitan University, Central 91ֱ�� University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and 91ֱ��, Cheshire East and Salford City Councils.

Attendees of the annual Turing Lecture taking place at The University of Manchester tomorrow (Wednesday) will hear how smartphone technology has completely revolutionised the way we work and live.

In the lecture, entitled “The Internet of Me: It’s All About My Screens”, Robert Schukai from Thomson Reuters, will talk about the fact that data is now everywhere, and managing and processing so much information poses enormous challenges for consumers and service providers alike.

Overall mobile subscriptions are set to jump by 1.7 billion over the next five years to 9.1 billion. 4.1 billion people of these will sign up to 4G technology, and almost 70% of all mobile traffic data is projected to be video by 2021. People are constantly connected, meaning their work and personal lives are blending into one another.

“Today, many people kick off their day by reading emails in bed and getting a start on the day before their commute,” Mr Schukai will say. “Our devices let us remain in contact with family members and friends throughout the day, and when we go home at night, colleagues still reach out and contact many of us until bedtime.”

This shift in how we live and work presents major challenges in balancing the delivery of information and content to people without it becoming overwhelming.

Cognitive computing, defined as the stimulation of human thought processes in a computerised model, is part of the future solution. “Machines must learn. Machines must think – artificial intelligence. Machines must interact with people – natural language processing - and they must interact with other machines,” Mr Schukai will reveal.

“Right now Google understands my browsing history on my desktop, knows my location and understands my interests - as such, it proactively pushes content to me. In the future, it will recognise and learn what I care about, understand what I can and can’t do on a device, and strike a balance between anticipate, push and pull of content.”

He will add that ‘making people smile’, by delivering personal, contextual and relevant information using whatever device they want to access that content upon, was something service providers especially needed to grasp.

Naomi Climer, President of lecture co-hosts The Institution of Engineering and Technology, said: “We would like to thank Robert for making time to deliver this inspiring Turing Lecture. The content will highlight the reach of engineering and technology in everything we do. Engineering is fundamental to everyday life, and Robert’s focus on the remarkable adoption of the smartphone and its impact on how we live our lives at work and at home emphasises this point. Engineering is not just about nuts, bolts and girders - it is about life-changing innovation. These lectures can contribute to that shift in perception.”

Jos Creese, President of The Chartered Institute for IT, added: “We have supported the Turing Lecture for a number of years because of the opportunities it brings to raise public awareness of the application of specialist research to social issues. Robert’s lecture will be extremely thought-provoking, and will showcase the impact of information technology on our lives and how we need to keep the consumer at the forefront of all innovations.”