A quick post to flag a really rather level-headed article in today's Guardian about antioxidants and dietary pills - one that looks at why taking such pills seemed plausible in the first place and at the mounting evidence that supplements laden with antioxidants may not only be ineffective at protecting against disease but may actually cause harm.
The author describes how the initial observation that reactive oxygen species (ROS, or free radicals that are formed as a by-product of most cellular activity and can damage proteins and DNA) play a role in many disease processes lead to the use of antioxidants (anything that mops up free radicals) as dietary supplements. The interesting point for me is that the article, written by a Justine Davies, has a very clear chronology not usually seen in pieces like this (honourable exceptions such as those from Dr. Ben Goldacre aside...). The grounds for belief X (i.e. that because free radicals have a role in disease, and because antioxindants mop them up, and because those with diets rich in antioxidant-rich fruit & veg live longer and healthier) are first set up almost dispassionately - reading about this you get the impression that up to this point scientists had got it pretty much spot on, which of course they had. Then the way in which industry latched onto belief X and created range of products Y, which were touted as powerful protectants against ageing/cancer/heart disease/itch eyes. Finally, the evidence that Y can actually do the opposite of what's intended is dealt with well.
Davies explains how the diet pill industry really got excited about antioxidants - all you have to do is visit holfordwatch.info to see just how excited - to the extent that tens of millions now take dietary supplements containing antioxidant vitamins. Only the science didn't stop there, and neither does the article. The key is that instead of credulously buying into the attractive mantra that antioxidants would help avoid cancer/heart disease/everything under the sun, Davies examines new evidence from large RCTs and meta-analyses that either show just how ineffective these supplements are, or indeed how damaging they can be.
The details are in the article itself, go and read it - my point here is that the way it's written reallty ought to form a model for science reporting. Careful analysis of evidence regardless of how difficult it may be to stomach (the supplement pill industry is worth billions), easy-to read explanations of the science involved, clear conclusions that align with current scientific consensus. Well done, now let's have more like this...!
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Friday, 12 June 2009
Government in fudged response to e-petition shocker
Hold the front pages - or maybe you shouldn't bother.
Some months ago Sean Ellis launched an e-petition demanding that the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC, better know on teh internets as OfQuack...) ask for evidence of efficacy of the treatments that their registered practitioners, err, practice. At first this seems an entirely logical premise - a government-backed body that publishes what is effectively a list of 'approved' practitioners ought to have, as one of its criteria for inclusion on said list, whether or not the services they offer effective for what they claim them to be.
Not so, it would seem. Consistently criticised for being a vehicle for unproven therapies, the CNHC has a lot to answer for - as does the government which set the whole venture up. But today the government responded to the e-petition demanding evidence for efficacy with a typical fudge - a simple reiteration of the CNHC's current remit with no mention of why they've omitted the crucial efficacy criterion.
The whole response is basically nothing more than a re-hashed version of the government's justification for setting up CNHC in the first place - deliberately avoiding the issue of efficacy and leaving that up to individual choice. How on Earth one is meant to exercise individual choice without any evidence for efficacy is beyond me, it really is.
Fudge, evasion, obfuscation - any more words spring to mind...? The entire OfQuack scenario is a shining example of how pandering to a minority interest group is more important to the government than the principles of scientific enquiry and evidence-based medicine. We must not let this lie - I can only suggest alerting as many media outlets as possible to this farcical situation to put more pressure on the government to relent.
Some months ago Sean Ellis launched an e-petition demanding that the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC, better know on teh internets as OfQuack...) ask for evidence of efficacy of the treatments that their registered practitioners, err, practice. At first this seems an entirely logical premise - a government-backed body that publishes what is effectively a list of 'approved' practitioners ought to have, as one of its criteria for inclusion on said list, whether or not the services they offer effective for what they claim them to be.
Not so, it would seem. Consistently criticised for being a vehicle for unproven therapies, the CNHC has a lot to answer for - as does the government which set the whole venture up. But today the government responded to the e-petition demanding evidence for efficacy with a typical fudge - a simple reiteration of the CNHC's current remit with no mention of why they've omitted the crucial efficacy criterion.
The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) does not promote the efficacy of disciplines practised by its registrantsis how the response begins. Perhaps not, but it does give the public a sense that by consulting with someone registered with CNHC, they're getting a therapy from a reliable source - in other words, the register legitimises all practitioners thereon, regardless of whether what they dish out/stick pins in/squeeze/dilute has any effect or is safe.
Regulation, whether statutory or voluntary, is about protecting the publicthe response continues. Marvellous, and about time too. So, by investigating the safety record of AltMed practitioners before including them on the list the more dangerous amongst them will be eliminated, right...? Nope, because there is no requirement for assessing safety or efficacy.
The whole response is basically nothing more than a re-hashed version of the government's justification for setting up CNHC in the first place - deliberately avoiding the issue of efficacy and leaving that up to individual choice. How on Earth one is meant to exercise individual choice without any evidence for efficacy is beyond me, it really is.
Fudge, evasion, obfuscation - any more words spring to mind...? The entire OfQuack scenario is a shining example of how pandering to a minority interest group is more important to the government than the principles of scientific enquiry and evidence-based medicine. We must not let this lie - I can only suggest alerting as many media outlets as possible to this farcical situation to put more pressure on the government to relent.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Simon Singh is appealing - he's also fighting for justice and freedom of speech
I like Simon Singh. Not in a I-stalk-him-and-his-wife-Anita-Anand-off-Radio-5-wherever-they-go kind of way (honest, guv...). No, I like his brilliantly insightful books, his quirky yet informative style of presenting the most complex principle in physics so that even an ignoramus like me can grasp them, and his more recent contribution to the sceptical literature that includes the fabulous Trick or Treatment, co-written with Prof. Edzard Ernst.
I do not like the really rather shameful treatment (no pun intended) that Singh has been subjected to by the British Association of Chiropractors (BCA) in response to an article he penned in The Guardian last year. It isn't for me to re-cap the whole story here - for more on the background visit Jack of Kent's extraordinary blog - but suffice to say that the BCA took offence at Singh's criticism of their profession, and in particular his contention that their claims for efficacy in cases for all sorts of diseases are in fact bogus (the original article has long since disappeared but Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog has excerpts here...). They sued, and as is now being widely reported, Mr. Justice Eady ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Singh would have to defend his use of the word 'bogus' as in Eady's judgement this imputed fraudulent malice to practitioners of chiropractic.
Singh is not the first to be threatened with legal action for expressing a scientifically valid opinion backed up by peer-reviewed evidence - the likes of the Quackometer, Ben Goldacre and many many others have suffered the chill from various sources. But what sets this case apart is that it's ended up in court, with astronomical (again, no pun intended) costs incurred already, and more in prospect. Moreover, the potential implication of Judge Eady's ruling extends to virtually all critical commentary on scientific issues.
As Nick Cohen eloquently wrote in last week's Observer,
And so to yesterday's news that Simon is to appeal against Justice Eady's ruling after all, which comes to this blogger via The Quackometer, Professor Colquhon's DCScience and Dr* T of thinking is dangerous. A brave decision, one that may cost Simon considerable personal effort and of course more funds, and yet the right decision. Not only because it shows that in the face of bullying and legal chill, scientific debate and free speech as a whole must be defended to the bitter end; not only because the right to question practices that have potentially grave consequences for public health is an essential prerogative of a free and independent press. As well as these reasons, Simon's decision to appeal is right because he has the support of hundreds of academics, journalists, lawyers and others who believe in the right to criticise that which is in the public domain and falsifiable, who believe that scientific criticism should not be answered with a bullying use of libel law but with considered debate surrounding the evidence, and who are prepared to lend their weight to a campain not only to support Simon in his commendable fight but to reform the libel laws of this country such that they become fit for purpose.
So sign up to the Facebook groupd supporting Simon, sign the Sense about Science statement of support, get the word out to all and sundry that the sceptical community will not stand by in silence while one of its most prominent and respected members is put through the mill.
I do not like the really rather shameful treatment (no pun intended) that Singh has been subjected to by the British Association of Chiropractors (BCA) in response to an article he penned in The Guardian last year. It isn't for me to re-cap the whole story here - for more on the background visit Jack of Kent's extraordinary blog - but suffice to say that the BCA took offence at Singh's criticism of their profession, and in particular his contention that their claims for efficacy in cases for all sorts of diseases are in fact bogus (the original article has long since disappeared but Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog has excerpts here...). They sued, and as is now being widely reported, Mr. Justice Eady ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Singh would have to defend his use of the word 'bogus' as in Eady's judgement this imputed fraudulent malice to practitioners of chiropractic.
Singh is not the first to be threatened with legal action for expressing a scientifically valid opinion backed up by peer-reviewed evidence - the likes of the Quackometer, Ben Goldacre and many many others have suffered the chill from various sources. But what sets this case apart is that it's ended up in court, with astronomical (again, no pun intended) costs incurred already, and more in prospect. Moreover, the potential implication of Judge Eady's ruling extends to virtually all critical commentary on scientific issues.
As Nick Cohen eloquently wrote in last week's Observer,
The consequences of letting the libel law loose on scientific debate are horrendous.If bloggers, journalists and writers fear the wrath of a scandalously bad libel law every time they dispute scientific findings, if critical thought is to be silenced without any deference to scientific fact (which in this case is squarely behind Singh, hence the furore), then what price debate and enquiry?
And so to yesterday's news that Simon is to appeal against Justice Eady's ruling after all, which comes to this blogger via The Quackometer, Professor Colquhon's DCScience and Dr* T of thinking is dangerous. A brave decision, one that may cost Simon considerable personal effort and of course more funds, and yet the right decision. Not only because it shows that in the face of bullying and legal chill, scientific debate and free speech as a whole must be defended to the bitter end; not only because the right to question practices that have potentially grave consequences for public health is an essential prerogative of a free and independent press. As well as these reasons, Simon's decision to appeal is right because he has the support of hundreds of academics, journalists, lawyers and others who believe in the right to criticise that which is in the public domain and falsifiable, who believe that scientific criticism should not be answered with a bullying use of libel law but with considered debate surrounding the evidence, and who are prepared to lend their weight to a campain not only to support Simon in his commendable fight but to reform the libel laws of this country such that they become fit for purpose.
So sign up to the Facebook groupd supporting Simon, sign the Sense about Science statement of support, get the word out to all and sundry that the sceptical community will not stand by in silence while one of its most prominent and respected members is put through the mill.
Monday, 1 June 2009
Europe - politics and science all in one post!
At the risk of being self-indulgent, allow me to explain why I'm writing a post linking the imminent European elections and science. I began this blog as a result of being a badscience.net forum nerd, discussing amongst other things how the media often makes a hash of reporting perfectly good science, how scientists are often frustrated at the sensationalist headlines their otherwise sound work is linked to, sometimes throwing in a bit of ethics for good measure (like this post on the use of genetic testing in the insurance industry).
As time moved on and I became a little more confident, I started throwing in the odd post related more to politics than science - as I did with a three-parter on the Embryology Bill being discussed in Parliament at the time, I've often tried to link science policy with issues of government where relevant. I've also written the odd post on that could be described as out-and-out politics - on Labour's handling of foreign affairs to attempts to safeguard out freedoms - as I gradually became more and more confident of my political leanings.
Today however the two strands meet courtesy of an impressive effort on the part of two of the heavyweights in the science blogosphere - Martin Robbins, who is better known as The Lay Scientist, and Frank Swain, a.k.a. Science Punk. They have investigated the scientific credentials of the main political parties contesting the upcoming ballot by quizzing them on nine areas of policy to which science is central. It pays to read the questions posed and the responses of the various parties in detail, as they are often illuminating, sometimes troubling and in every case clear-cut examples of outstanding investigative journalism - with Martin and Frank having published a precis of their work on the Guardian Science blog it is further proof, were any needed, of the outstanding work bloggers can do to probe Establishment institutions and extract useful information to be shared with the community.
Science Punk and The Lay Scientist both analysed the answers to their questions on their own blogs too, and I'll leave it to the reader to research these at leisure (highly recommended). Suffice to say that there was a mix of the reassuring (Lab, Con and Lib Dem responses to the climate change questions appear so to varying degrees) and the disturbing - and sadly the latter is mostly due to the Green Party's stance on so many of the categories investigated.
Other, more thorough bloggers have now covered the Greens' position on genetic modification (which the indefatigable Gimpy rightly flags as representing a threat to the entire field of biological research) and on the role of alternative medicine in healthcare (which holfordwatch, insightful as ever, cites as no more than encouragement to the Alt Med industry whose 'treatments' are largely ineffectual and often dangerous).
From all these analyses, this blogger takes one over-arching lesson. That is the distinct lack of engagement with scientific issues by elected representatives which could easily lead to uninformed decision-making at the highest level. Some notable exceptions aside, our leaders appear at best disinterested in and at worst downright ignorant of the most pressing scientific concerns. I'm not choosing to be critical because of some misguided bias - yes I am a scientist myself, but what's more important is that those in a position to set budgets of billions and influence the direction of scientific enquiry are as clued up as possible on the very areas they have such heavy jurisdiction over.
As Martin and Frank say in their Guardian article,
As time moved on and I became a little more confident, I started throwing in the odd post related more to politics than science - as I did with a three-parter on the Embryology Bill being discussed in Parliament at the time, I've often tried to link science policy with issues of government where relevant. I've also written the odd post on that could be described as out-and-out politics - on Labour's handling of foreign affairs to attempts to safeguard out freedoms - as I gradually became more and more confident of my political leanings.
Today however the two strands meet courtesy of an impressive effort on the part of two of the heavyweights in the science blogosphere - Martin Robbins, who is better known as The Lay Scientist, and Frank Swain, a.k.a. Science Punk. They have investigated the scientific credentials of the main political parties contesting the upcoming ballot by quizzing them on nine areas of policy to which science is central. It pays to read the questions posed and the responses of the various parties in detail, as they are often illuminating, sometimes troubling and in every case clear-cut examples of outstanding investigative journalism - with Martin and Frank having published a precis of their work on the Guardian Science blog it is further proof, were any needed, of the outstanding work bloggers can do to probe Establishment institutions and extract useful information to be shared with the community.
Science Punk and The Lay Scientist both analysed the answers to their questions on their own blogs too, and I'll leave it to the reader to research these at leisure (highly recommended). Suffice to say that there was a mix of the reassuring (Lab, Con and Lib Dem responses to the climate change questions appear so to varying degrees) and the disturbing - and sadly the latter is mostly due to the Green Party's stance on so many of the categories investigated.
Other, more thorough bloggers have now covered the Greens' position on genetic modification (which the indefatigable Gimpy rightly flags as representing a threat to the entire field of biological research) and on the role of alternative medicine in healthcare (which holfordwatch, insightful as ever, cites as no more than encouragement to the Alt Med industry whose 'treatments' are largely ineffectual and often dangerous).
From all these analyses, this blogger takes one over-arching lesson. That is the distinct lack of engagement with scientific issues by elected representatives which could easily lead to uninformed decision-making at the highest level. Some notable exceptions aside, our leaders appear at best disinterested in and at worst downright ignorant of the most pressing scientific concerns. I'm not choosing to be critical because of some misguided bias - yes I am a scientist myself, but what's more important is that those in a position to set budgets of billions and influence the direction of scientific enquiry are as clued up as possible on the very areas they have such heavy jurisdiction over.
As Martin and Frank say in their Guardian article,
Science is at the heart of our modern world, and it deserves to be at the heart of political discussion too.Perhaps now is the time for scientists themselves to enter into public life, to ensure that standards are upheld and key decisions made by those with a grasp of the scientific process and what it is that constitutes evidence - lest the leaders we elect on Thursday fail yet again to acknowledge the centrality of scientific research in all we do.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Making a pig's ear over swine flu - the Jenkins/Goldacre debate over media coverage of H1N1
OMG teh Pig Feva iz cumming to get u!!
Or, to put it in rather more prosaic language, the outbreak of porcine influenza virus that has claimed dozens of lives in Mexico is spreading, and with each day comes news of confirmed cases in North America, Europe and Israel. With each day too we see more and more alarming headlines, such as that in the first link above -
This question has occupied, amongst others, Simon Jenkins, who wrote a riotous piece in The Guardian damming the entire episode as hype and scaremongering. In response Dr. Ben Goldacre penned a somewhat more considered article in today's Grauniad, in what he describes rather unfairly on his blog as "possibly the most boring thing I’ve ever written in the Guardian." I respectfully disagree, Ben; boring to some maybe, but it's hugely important to how the country reacts to this latest potential pandemic.
I'll say at this point that Jenkins' frankly absurd suggestion that the World Health Organisation is over-funded has been expertly dealt with by Gimpyblog, and I'll refrain from commenting further on that other than to say that I for one applaud everything in that post that is supportive of scientific research and dissemination thereof.
Jenkins' main contention appears to be that because previous health scares on this scale failed (SARS, Avian flu etc) to materialise into the full-blown 28 Days Later scenario, this current flu outbreak will turn out to be nothing more than
Yes of course that's but a fraction of the total deaths from all causes (in the USA it's estimated to be associated with around 7% of all deaths in winter months), but a significant fraction nonetheless. So to say that flu makes you feel ill is somewhat missing the point - yes it does, but it can also kill.
So why the supposition that this too shall pass? Is that any more sensible a position to take than the end-of-the-world doomsday outlook? Well, according to Goldacre, and to this blogger for what it's worth, not really. As Ben points out, from the sparse data available thus far it is nigh on impossible to predict how many will get infected, how many of those unfortunates will fall seriously ill, and how many in turn will die. Too many variables will impact on each of those outcomes. What is certain is that it is responsible and appropriate to make such preparations as we can - applying the precautionary principle seems sensible as in the even of a major pandemic, we need to be prepared to matter how many people voice their concern that this is just another media-driven scare.
Which brings us to what I think is Goldacre's central observation. Following health scares that really have been exaggerated by the Fourth Estate (MMR springs to mind...),
Suffice to say that time alone will prove Jenkins right or wrong, as of now I hope it's the former but am more and more concerned that history will prove him to be closer to the latter. Watch this pig-shaped space...
Or, to put it in rather more prosaic language, the outbreak of porcine influenza virus that has claimed dozens of lives in Mexico is spreading, and with each day comes news of confirmed cases in North America, Europe and Israel. With each day too we see more and more alarming headlines, such as that in the first link above -
The whole of humanity is under threat- from the esteemed publication The Sun, to choose but one example. How is the public meant to balance these two streams of information? On the one hand we have the World Health Organisation steadily increasing its pandemic alert - currently at phase 5 out of a possible 6 - and on the other we have the likes of the People's Medical Journal (aka the Daily Mail) spouting stories that to many would appear to be parodies. Who to trust - are we doomed, or is the meeja up to its old crying-wolf trick?
This question has occupied, amongst others, Simon Jenkins, who wrote a riotous piece in The Guardian damming the entire episode as hype and scaremongering. In response Dr. Ben Goldacre penned a somewhat more considered article in today's Grauniad, in what he describes rather unfairly on his blog as "possibly the most boring thing I’ve ever written in the Guardian." I respectfully disagree, Ben; boring to some maybe, but it's hugely important to how the country reacts to this latest potential pandemic.
I'll say at this point that Jenkins' frankly absurd suggestion that the World Health Organisation is over-funded has been expertly dealt with by Gimpyblog, and I'll refrain from commenting further on that other than to say that I for one applaud everything in that post that is supportive of scientific research and dissemination thereof.
Jenkins' main contention appears to be that because previous health scares on this scale failed (SARS, Avian flu etc) to materialise into the full-blown 28 Days Later scenario, this current flu outbreak will turn out to be nothing more than
a panic stoked in order to posture and spend.Jenkins goes on to reveal a really quite blasé attitude to influenza:
Flu makes you feel ill. You should take medicine and rest. You will then get well again, unless you are very unlucky or have some complicating condition.Yes Simon, but it's this last bit that's crucial isn't it? Although exact numbers are difficult to find, it is estimated that several hundred deaths per annum are caused by influenza-related respiratory illness in the UK (although these figures relate to influenza and pneumonia together, I haven't yet found reliable figures for influenza alone, presumably because of the lack of molecular analysis from patients...). And this is for plain, vanilla Influenza A, before those pesky porkers sent their virus our way.
Yes of course that's but a fraction of the total deaths from all causes (in the USA it's estimated to be associated with around 7% of all deaths in winter months), but a significant fraction nonetheless. So to say that flu makes you feel ill is somewhat missing the point - yes it does, but it can also kill.
So why the supposition that this too shall pass? Is that any more sensible a position to take than the end-of-the-world doomsday outlook? Well, according to Goldacre, and to this blogger for what it's worth, not really. As Ben points out, from the sparse data available thus far it is nigh on impossible to predict how many will get infected, how many of those unfortunates will fall seriously ill, and how many in turn will die. Too many variables will impact on each of those outcomes. What is certain is that it is responsible and appropriate to make such preparations as we can - applying the precautionary principle seems sensible as in the even of a major pandemic, we need to be prepared to matter how many people voice their concern that this is just another media-driven scare.
Which brings us to what I think is Goldacre's central observation. Following health scares that really have been exaggerated by the Fourth Estate (MMR springs to mind...),
not only have the public lost all faith in the media; not only do so many people assume, now, that they are being misled; but more than that, the media themselves have lost all confidence in their own ability to give us the facts.Quite. Having heard journalists cry wolf for so long without any wolves appearing, the default position of many is now "oh, it's just the press ratcheting up the fear again..." Problem is, istdoes appear as if this time there is a significant risk of pandemic and pandemonium. Which is the point - it's a risk, not a certainty either way, but a risk, and until the public understands the difference and how to deal with it I'm afraid we'll always have the hyperbole and the cynicism, the sandwich-board Armageddon types and the sneering cocksure Jenkins-ites.
Suffice to say that time alone will prove Jenkins right or wrong, as of now I hope it's the former but am more and more concerned that history will prove him to be closer to the latter. Watch this pig-shaped space...
Friday, 13 March 2009
Improbable though it may seem, Ig Nobel tour is hard to swallow
Dr. Ben Goldacre of badscience.net has a theory (in fact he has many, of which this is but one). The theory is that modern society neglects its nerds at its own peril - that, as he eloquently explains whilst on the loo, by dumbing down coverage of science and medicine in the media we risk engendering apathy and disinterest in those who may no longer be professional scientists but who retain their nerd-like tendencies.
And so for one glorious night all this was put to one side as arguably the most nerdy geekathon came to town. Improbable research, that merry band of Americans who award the annual Ig Nobel prize, brought their show to Imperial College London last night in a 150-minute tour de force of laughs, cringes and bewildered applause. The Improbable mission is to publish
There was more: a dissection of why the nickname of the sore throat that accompanies peritonsillitis, 'hot potato voice' (which apparently clinicians in the UK use all the time) - is a misnomer, because the vocal frequency changes in the illness do not resemble those when you have a hot potato in your mouth. More potato-based action - an Oxford psychologist who showed that when eating crisps, the crispier the crisp sounds, the crisper the eater will rate it as. And a study of "scrotal asymmetry." Enough said.
There's a pattern of course - most of the research starts off as serious work, and is published in proper scientific journals - Nature in the case of the scrotal asymmetry. Yes the results may be silly, yest the experiments themselves may be bonkers, yet there's something edifying about the investigators themselves coming along and sharing their work, their passion, all for entertainment and scientific enlightenment.
Still, they saved the best (or at least the weirdest) till last. Dan Meyer, winner of the 2007 Ig Nobel Medicine prize came on stage, introduced as a sword swallower. And swallow swords he did - three of them, increasing in length. So far, so circus act. But this man truly must be unhinged, as he got members of the audience to extract the swords from his insides, firstly by just pulling the sword out and in the second case by yanking on an Indiana Jones-style whip attached to the hilt. To gasps of amazement he avoided dying with flying colours - a bizarre and somewhat sobering end to a superb night of entertainment and science - there you are Ben, the nerds are catered for.
And so for one glorious night all this was put to one side as arguably the most nerdy geekathon came to town. Improbable research, that merry band of Americans who award the annual Ig Nobel prize, brought their show to Imperial College London last night in a 150-minute tour de force of laughs, cringes and bewildered applause. The Improbable mission is to publish
Research that makes people LAUGH and then THINK.And that's what we got in bundles at the show. We laughed when Marie-Christine Cadiergues explained how and why she conducted research into how fleas found on dogs jump higher and further than fleas found on cats. And then were made to think about how this reflects on flea biology. We chuckled at Prof. David Sims' take on how people get angry - entitled You Bastard, this paper makes you think about indignation and rage. And we shifted uncomfortably in our seats and laughed too as Kees Moeliker recounted his experience of homosexual necrophilia in ducks (which won him arguably the most famous Ig Nobel prize in recent years in 2003), and thought about just how this practice appears not to be restricted to ducks but occurs in many species of bird. Oh, and for added effect, he brought said duck with him which he had stuffed and preserved as part of his job at the Rotterdam Natuaral history Museum.
There was more: a dissection of why the nickname of the sore throat that accompanies peritonsillitis, 'hot potato voice' (which apparently clinicians in the UK use all the time) - is a misnomer, because the vocal frequency changes in the illness do not resemble those when you have a hot potato in your mouth. More potato-based action - an Oxford psychologist who showed that when eating crisps, the crispier the crisp sounds, the crisper the eater will rate it as. And a study of "scrotal asymmetry." Enough said.
There's a pattern of course - most of the research starts off as serious work, and is published in proper scientific journals - Nature in the case of the scrotal asymmetry. Yes the results may be silly, yest the experiments themselves may be bonkers, yet there's something edifying about the investigators themselves coming along and sharing their work, their passion, all for entertainment and scientific enlightenment.
Still, they saved the best (or at least the weirdest) till last. Dan Meyer, winner of the 2007 Ig Nobel Medicine prize came on stage, introduced as a sword swallower. And swallow swords he did - three of them, increasing in length. So far, so circus act. But this man truly must be unhinged, as he got members of the audience to extract the swords from his insides, firstly by just pulling the sword out and in the second case by yanking on an Indiana Jones-style whip attached to the hilt. To gasps of amazement he avoided dying with flying colours - a bizarre and somewhat sobering end to a superb night of entertainment and science - there you are Ben, the nerds are catered for.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Parliament and MMR - you win some, you lose some
I wrote recently about an LBC radio broadcast in which Jeni Barnett issued canard after irresponsible canard about the MMR vaccine, and the subsequent criticism of said broadcast by a Dr. Ben Goldacre which landed him in some hot water. This post deals with what happened next, and how Parliament has weighed in.
Five days after badscience.net author Goldacre was presented with legal threats regarding his website, Norman Lamb MP tabled Early Day Motion 754 relating to the LBC show, the text of which I've copied below.
Members of the badscience.net community have since been busy writing to their respective MPs asking them to sign, with varying degrees of success. Some MPs were responsive to their constituents alerting them to the debacle over MMR - my own MP, Eleanor Laing (CON, Epping Forest) is amongst them, and she kindly wrote back on paper acknowledging my bringing of this EDM to her attention. Although Laing was far from alone in this, there has been some dragging of feet and obfuscation in other parts of the House of Commons. As the badscience.net forum thread indicates, some MPs have simply fobbed off their correspondents with what seems to be a pro-forma reply, advocating what appears to be a partisan stance on the provision of single vaccines. Far from supporting this laudable EDM, these MPs seem to be taking the opportunity to tow the party line by insisting on a strategy for which there is scant evidence if any.
Partisan division are appearing in the support for this EDM - blacktriangle posted a party-wise breakdown of the signatories two weeks after the motion was published, with the Lab-Con-Lib standings reading as 10-2-38 percent. Here's an update as of 12/03/2009:
In total there are 117 signatories, with a clear partisan pattern to be seen - the Conservative party appear adamant in their rejection of this motion supporting MMR and censuring Ms. Barnett, a few notable exceptions aside. The party poised to
form the next government is sadly taking a rather weak position on this critical issue.
So here is where the internet, in all its glory, shows its strengths and weaknesses. Campaigns to garner support for a cause can recruit thousands of regular punters to their ranks in minutes; and yet there is no greater pressure for the Establishment to pay heed just because the protest takes an electronic form. In the age of Twitter and the like MPs may have many more EDMs, open letters, petitions and the like brought to their attention - what remains to be seen is whether this makes them more or less likely to lend their support.
Five days after badscience.net author Goldacre was presented with legal threats regarding his website, Norman Lamb MP tabled Early Day Motion 754 relating to the LBC show, the text of which I've copied below.
That this House expresses its support for the use of the combined MMR vaccine; notes with concern the re-emergence of measles and the loss of life and long-term health problems which will afflict children as a result of the decline in the vaccination rate which followed Dr Andrew Wakefield's now discredited research paper suggesting a link between MMR vaccine and autism; expresses its disappointment that ill-informed comments by presenters such as Jeni Barnett on her LBC radio show will continue to cause unfounded anxieties for many parents and are likely to result in some parents choosing not to vaccinate their children; recognises the right of Jeni Barnett as a parent to make her own judgement about vaccinations for her own children but implores her and others in the media to act more responsibly when making comments in the public domain; and further expresses its hope that in the future reporting the issue of MMR will be less sensationalist and more evidence-based.Ranging in gravitas from the eccentric to the era-defining, EDMs are an excellent tool used by Parliamentarians to highlight causes that require no legislative intervention but are catapulted into the public discourse - they provide a channel for MPs to voice their position on contemporary affairs by adding their signature. It's this blogger's opinion that EDM754 is strong, brave and worthy, particularly in its call on the media to tighten its coverage of such issues and to avoid sensationalist scaremongering.
Members of the badscience.net community have since been busy writing to their respective MPs asking them to sign, with varying degrees of success. Some MPs were responsive to their constituents alerting them to the debacle over MMR - my own MP, Eleanor Laing (CON, Epping Forest) is amongst them, and she kindly wrote back on paper acknowledging my bringing of this EDM to her attention. Although Laing was far from alone in this, there has been some dragging of feet and obfuscation in other parts of the House of Commons. As the badscience.net forum thread indicates, some MPs have simply fobbed off their correspondents with what seems to be a pro-forma reply, advocating what appears to be a partisan stance on the provision of single vaccines. Far from supporting this laudable EDM, these MPs seem to be taking the opportunity to tow the party line by insisting on a strategy for which there is scant evidence if any.
Partisan division are appearing in the support for this EDM - blacktriangle posted a party-wise breakdown of the signatories two weeks after the motion was published, with the Lab-Con-Lib standings reading as 10-2-38 percent. Here's an update as of 12/03/2009:
Labour: 58/350 total MPs, 16.5%
Conservative: 8/193, 4%
Liberal Democrats: 41/63, 65%
Other (not including Sinn Fein): 10/32, 31%
In total there are 117 signatories, with a clear partisan pattern to be seen - the Conservative party appear adamant in their rejection of this motion supporting MMR and censuring Ms. Barnett, a few notable exceptions aside. The party poised to
form the next government is sadly taking a rather weak position on this critical issue.So here is where the internet, in all its glory, shows its strengths and weaknesses. Campaigns to garner support for a cause can recruit thousands of regular punters to their ranks in minutes; and yet there is no greater pressure for the Establishment to pay heed just because the protest takes an electronic form. In the age of Twitter and the like MPs may have many more EDMs, open letters, petitions and the like brought to their attention - what remains to be seen is whether this makes them more or less likely to lend their support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
