Human excellences and defects - the virtues and vices of character - have been central to moral philosophy for fifty years. But though the developmental dimension of virtue ethics is mentioned even by Aristotle - as he says, 'it is a matter of no little importance what sort of habits we form from the earliest age' - it remains underexplored to this day. This is a significant theoretical gap in its own right. Filling it promises to yield new understanding not only of the processes by which vice and virtue are formed, but also of what vice and virtue are, and thus to address afresh the fundamental issue in virtue ethics: the relationship of vice and virtue to the proper development of human nature. However, this theoretical gap is one which also threatens to have practical consequences. Vice and virtue have been a prominent theme in recent public policy discussions, with character education envisaged as a key means by which early years interventions can address social problems. But if we do not understand how virtues and vices of character are formed, we cannot intervene effectively to promote or prevent their formation. And if we do not understand how the traditional vices and virtues relate to those developmental goals which lie more obviously within the reach of early years interventions - like warm relations with caregivers, the ability to focus on a task, or the ability to defer gratification - we have no way of evaluating whether these interventions really are promoting virtue, or if so, how. The proposed interdisciplinary research network aims both to address the theoretical gap identified above, and to devise theoretical tools with which to assess character-building interventions in the early years. It will do so by bringing moral philosophers working in virtue ethics together with experts in attachment theory, one of today's leading approaches in developmental psychology, which has been influential in public policy discussion on character but has yet to gain proper recognition from philosophers. It is able to take on both tasks because the network's theoretical and policy-focused ambitions stitch together neatly. According to attachment theory, attachment dispositions are the product of natural selection: clinging, following and so on evoke caregiving behaviour in adults, which favours survival. And individual attachment dispositions (secure or insecure) explain high-level psychological differences - e.g., in respect of the ability to co-operate or to regulate emotion. But are co-operativeness and emotion-regulation virtues - distinctively modern ones which deserve a place in philosophy alongside the Aristotelian and (post)-Christian catalogue? Or are they more basic dispositions which can underlie vice and virtue alike? Co-operativeness is socially useful, so if - as Philippa Foot maintained - the virtues are the traits necessary for us to lead our characteristic species life, the answer seems to be yes. But co-operation is as necessary for war and interest-rate fraud as it is for socially useful activity. The answer is thus decisive for the fundamental claim of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics - that virtues and vices are natural excellences and defects. To evaluate that claim is the network's central theoretical goal. But co-operativeness and emotion-regulation are also typical goals of early years interventions: because of these traits' well-established links to secure attachment, if we can promote secure attachment (e.g. by teaching parenting skills), we know we can promote those traits. But are we thereby promoting virtue? If these traits are virtues, yes; if not, then either we are not promoting virtue, or we are doing so but do not yet properly understand why. Mapping the relationships between the traditional virtues and the high-level psychological traits attachment theory is in a position to explain is thus a path to fulfilling both the network's theoretical and its practical ambitions.

Understanding speech in noisy environments is one of the most difficult --- and important --- tasks of human hearing. Accurate perception of speech in noise involves not only mechanisms of hearing within the ear, but also mechanisms of hearing within the brain. Many children with developmental disorders and elderly adults have abnormal difficulty perceiving speech in noisy environments, even when their hearing and their ability to perceive speech in quiet environments is normal. These difficulties with speech-in-noise perception are thought to arise, at least in part, from developmental and age-related abnormalities in the auditory brain rather than the ear. However, the nature of the auditory brain abnormalities affecting perception of speech in noisy environments remains poorly understood. We have recently discovered, in a mouse model, that auditory brain sensitivity to sound offsets (disappearances) can be impaired while sensitivity to sound onsets (appearances) is not. This previously unrecognised form of hearing difficulty --- "offset-deafness" --- appears to arise in the brain rather than the ear. Standard clinical tests of human hearing focus almost exclusively on sensitivity to sound onsets, and would not even detect a specific deficit in auditory brain sensitivity to sound offsets like that observed in the mouse model. However, sensitivity to sound offsets is thought to be critical for speech-in-noise perception; therefore, it is possible that "offset-deafness" in humans could produce difficulties with speech-in-noise perception despite apparently normal hearing in clinical tests. The main objective of this research is to test the hypothesis that "offset-deafness" can disrupt perception and cortical processing of speech-like sounds in noise. We propose to test this hypothesis using both our mouse model of naturally occurring "offset-deafness", and normal mice in which we will induce "offset-deafness" experimentally by suppressing activity of sound-offset-sensitive cells in the auditory brainstem. We will measure the ability of the mice to detect changes in speech-like sounds in noise, and simultaneously we will measure auditory cortical activity evoked by those sounds. In addition, we will collect similar behavioural and neural measures of brain sensitivity to simpler sounds such as brief gaps in noise and quiet tones in silence. By comparing results between mice with and without "offset-deafness", we will achieve our main objective: to determine whether reduced auditory brain sensitivity to sound offsets impairs perception and cortical processing of speech-like sounds in noise. Additional objectives will be to determine whether abnormalities in speech-in-noise sensitivity can be predicted from sensitivity to brief gaps in noise; and how sound-offset-sensitive cells in the auditory brainstem influence perception. These experiments may help us to understand why some people with apparently normal hearing --- especially children with developmental disorders and elderly adults ---- have abnormal difficulty with perception of speech in noisy environments. If "offset-deafness" can indeed impair perception of speech in noisy environments, then the introduction of simple clinical tests for sound-offset sensitivity could help to identify patients likely to have to difficulty with speech-in-noise perception. Moreover, novel assisted-listening devices that enhance perception of sound offsets might improve the ability of young children to hear effectively in noisy classrooms, and of elderly adults to maintain healthy levels of social interaction into old age.

Many of the predictions of modern theoretical physics are extremely difficult to test. For example, Hawking's famous prediction that black holes radiate at a characteristic temperature. Since the temperature of `Hawking radiation' is very low, it is not (even in principle) detectable via observational astronomy. Furthermore, is is unlikely that we will ever be able to construct black holes here on earth. The lack of an in principle means for direct experimental testing of predictions such as Hawking radiation pose a challenge to conventional scientific methodologies. This challenge is taken up by techniques of `analogue simulation' wherein an accessible `source' system is used to simulate phenomena that are difficult or impossible to test directly within a `target' system. Analogue simulation in modern physics comes in two forms depending upon the type of source and target system: `quantum simulation' and `analogue gravity simulation'. In quantum simulation both source and target systems are typically within the domain of finite dimensional quantum theory. A simple example is where an array of ions (i.e. charged atoms) is controlled via magnetic fields such that they collectively simulate a ferromagnetic material (such as an iron bar magnet). Quantum simulations are potentially very powerful tools for gaining new insights into quantum systems that are hard to manipulate, for example relativistic quantum systems, nano-materials and quantum optical systems. In analogue gravity simulations, condensed matter systems, like fluids, are typically used to simulate gravitational systems, such as black holes or early universe cosmology. Analogue gravity simulations are potentially very powerful tools for gaining new insights into phenomena that are deemed impossible to test directly, such as Hawking radiation. This is a project in the philosophy of science within which we will evaluate the methodological, epistemological and metaphysical foundations of analogue simulation with the goal of providing analytic tools of direct use to scientists, philosophers of science, and science funding decision makers. We answer questions such as: What kind of evidence can analogue simulations provide?; What do analogue simulations have in common with computer simulations and experiments?; What is the scientific and economic value of analogue simulation? We propose that analogue simulation can be understood as a form of `Ersatz' experimentation, involving the `programming' of a physical system such that it can be used to `simulate' another physical system. In general terms, evidence gained from experiments on a particular system is only of real value to the extent to which we have justification for generalising it to a class of relevantly similar `target' systems. Such justificatory arguments are called `external validation' of an experiment. One of the key ideas explored in this project is conditions for external validation of analogue simulations. For example, we aim to examine the conditions in which the analogue simulation of Hawking radiation via condensed matter systems can be externally validated: i.e. when we can genuinely learn about black holes by doing experiments on the analogues.

From the South Asian Tsunami to the Haitian Earthquake, the last decade has witnessed a significant rise in the number of catastrophes experienced worldwide. These have highlighted the challenges and vulnerabilities faced by communities in the face of environmental hazards, inspiring sustained reflection on global responsibilities for prevention and aid. This project seeks to position such events in historical perspective as part of a much broader array of post-World War II crises and catastrophes - both social and environmental, chronic and acute - which have had disproportionate effects on the world's poorest communities, many of which are still grappling with the legacies of western colonialism. Departing from conventional methods of studying disasters, which tend to focus on North American and European examples, the project compares how a wide range of global catastrophes are portrayed in postcolonial literature and film. It argues that, taken together, these texts have much to reveal about how we think about disaster, providing new insights into vulnerability reduction that respond to local cultural contexts and to global processes that can heighten as well as mitigate risk. The project is situated in relation to the growing body of disaster representations produced in recent years by writers and filmmakers as diverse as Tahmima Anam, Dionne Brand, Kamau Brathwaite, James George, Tareque Masud, Raoul Peck, Kamila Shamsie, and Indra Sinha. These depict the everyday human consequences of catastrophes and their deep-lying causes, and require critics to focus as much on past and present experiences of real-world disasters as on future apocalyptic scenarios (such as those presented in The Road or The Day After Tomorrow). The perspectives generated by creative texts are especially valuable for disaster risk reduction when read alongside social science-based approaches. This is because researchers across numerous academic fields are now identifying a clear need to humanize and add cultural and historical depth to our understanding of disasters' social and environmental effects, and to look at how creative narratives and aesthetic forms shape different interpretations of catastrophes. The project will establish the extent to which postcolonial texts challenge, reject, or reconfigure key disaster studies concepts such as resilience, risk, adaption, sustainability, and vulnerability. At the same time, it will explore how disaster studies insights can help frame and inform textual readings of specific disasters. It will contribute to Care for the Future's core aim by providing historicised analyses of how aesthetic works can help us think through the tensions between continuity and change in the wake of real-world catastrophes. The primary output will be an academic research monograph and related articles focusing on the following case studies: the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; Pacific Nuclearisation; the Bhola Cyclone and the Bangladesh Liberation War; the Bhopal Gas Disaster; the Rwandan Genocide; the Montserrat Volcano Eruptions; and the Haitian Earthquake. The project also includes a number of collaborative and exchange activities that will create links between literary scholars and disaster studies specialists from across multiple disciplines (especially anthropology, geography, history, political ecology, and sociology), and will demonstrate research applications to cross-sector stakeholders such as government, private sector, civil society, and third sector representatives. In particular, it seeks to impact on non-academic policy and practice by showing how humanities-based perspectives can help critique and contribute to disaster management and sustainability planning. The project will also engage the public through a series of commemorative activities in 2014 in conjunction with writers, critics, and charity representatives, a website, and a short film produced in collaboration with an independent filmmaker.

In today's changing climate, we are constantly trying to improve crops to achieve more sustainable agricultural practices. To do this, we need to understand in great detail how plants grow and work. Genetics is a powerful tool for helping us to obtain such an understanding. Using it we are able to analyse the whole genetic make-up (the genome) of plants to discover all the genes required for them to develop and operate correctly. We can use this information to study variants that have a defect in a particular gene (or genes) in which we are interested. This helps us to understand how the gene works when it is operating normally and consequently its role in the plant. Some species of plant have had their whole genome sequenced already, but there are still thousands of their genes whose role in the plant is not understood. To obtain plants that bear a defective gene we can treat seeds with chemicals or radiation that damage the DNA coding for that gene. The offspring from these treated seeds will bear a large number of defects in their genomes. By producing a large population of offspring we can make every gene in the genome bear a defect. The problem then is to find the plant in the population that has a defect in the gene in which you are interested. We have developed methods that can sort out defective genes of interest and find the plants that contain them, so we can find out the role of the gene. This whole process is known as reverse genetics. No one chemical or physical means can induce all the defects we need to study particular genes so we need to use several different methods. In this project we will set up a resource for the plant science research community so that they can discover the function of their particular genes of interest. We will set up populations of legumes and brassicas (treated with chemicals or radiation) that contain plants bearing different forms of defective genes. We have developed special methods based on highly efficient machines (sequencers) that can detect the defects when compared to the normal gene. Scientists can then send us information about the gene of interest, for example, a legume gene, and we can then look for defects in their specific gene in our population of thousands of legume plants. We then send them seeds from the plant that they can grow to study the action of the defective gene in that plant. All the information that we gather about our plants and their thousand upon thousands of genes will be stored in a computer database that we will construct especially for this project, although it will be written in such a way that others can use it as well. It will also be available to use on the worldwide web so that a scientist anywhere in the UK or the World can come and browse to see if the database contains information about their gene of interest. The reason for wanting to do this is to improve the ability of crop plants to grow in different environments, especially adverse ones, and to help the farmer work in a sustainable way using less added fertiliser and fewer herbicides and pesticides.