The Power of Prediction

@andrewbolt gently mocks the apocalyptic predictions of elderly professors, as well as the way popular journalists can get sensational headlines from an interview that is largely composed of casual chatter. Our own extinction is forecast, but he's going by dead reckoning (Herald Sun, 19th June 2010).

Why do we treat the end of the world as a kind of entertainment? Andrew Bolt suggests that "when these scientists say the end of the world is nigh, they don't mean it, not literally, but are just scaring us for our own good. Or that they do mean it, but are frankly batty."

Batty or merely hopelessly unqualified? Frank Fenner, who recently predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years, is an emeritus professor of microbiology. Meanwhile, Nicholas Boyle, who has predicted a dramatic event to take place in 2014 and determine the course of the 21st century, is a professor of German literature. What qualifies these specialists to become general-purpose futurologists?

For the popular press, of course, one professor is as good as another.

• Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years', claims leading scientist (Daily Mail)
• 2014 will determine course of century, says Cambridge professor (Daily Telegraph)
• Why the world will NOT end in 2012: Nasa scientist debunks conspiracy theories (Daily Mail)
• Dementia may have been caused by the Second World War, says scientist (Daily Mail)

Osmosis in Fish

My son has some biology coursework about osmosis in plants, so he can probably ignore all the interesting facts on Wikipedia about osmosis in fish ("Effect on cells").

Salt water fish lose water through osmosis, and need a mechanism to rehydrate and desalinate their cells. Meanwhile, freshwater fish gain water through osmosis, and need an entirely different mechanism to dehydrate their cells. So that appears to be two different systems with two different purposes.

But what if we look at a species of fish that thrives both in salt water and in freshwater, such as salmon. Presumably such fish need both mechanisms. The purpose now is not adding or subtracting but regulating. (Scientists call it osmoregulation.)

So we have different ways of thinking about the purpose of these mechanisms. If we are solely looking at freshwater fish, we see the purpose in a specific way; if we are looking at all kinds of fish, then we see the purpose of the mechanism in a much more general way. This relates to @seabird20's point that POSIWID should be plural.

This means that we have to be careful when using POSIWID as a simple systems thinking heuristic. We get different answers depending (if I may use a fishing metaphor here) on how widely we cast the net.

Does the Higgs Boson particle have a secret mission?

Why do we have no evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson particle? Why have several experimental quests for the Higgs Boson particle ended in expensive failure, most notably the recent failure at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?

(Update November 2009: a second failure involved a bird and a baguette [Register, Guardian]. You couldn't make it up.)

If you want a crazy idea, ask a physicist. Holger Bech Nielsen and the Japanese physicist Masao Ninomiya suggest a novel hypothesis that sounds like science fiction. Their idea is that the Higgs boson particle goes backwards in time to erase evidence of its existence, including retrospectively sabotaging the experiment that would produce it. It is called the God particle, after all.

And for their second crazy idea, Nielsen and Ninomiya have suggested a way to test the hypothesis, based on a random procedure that looks like a rejected Derren Brown script.

Underlying these crazy ideas there is perhaps a serious criticism of the research methodology behind the Large Hadron Collider. According to Cern's director of communications James Gillies, the experiment is "a bit like firing knitting needles from across the Atlantic and getting them to collide half way" [BBC News, 16 October 2009]. But does this ballistic metaphor, which Newton would have understood, make any sense in terms of the latest thinking about subatomic physics? Is this extremely expensive experiment capable of producing any meaningful results? How long is a piece of string theory?

For details and commentary, see New York Times, New Scientist, Register, Reuters, Dorigo and (highly recommended) Discover. And see my previous post: CERN and conspiracy theories.

Science and Public Policy

What is the purpose of science in society? Let me start with three data points. 

1. The UK Parliament has asked the British public what science issues it should investigate (via Bad Science). 

2. The media are constantly packed with celebrity scientists, who pontificate on a wide variety of subjects, often way outside their narrow specialism, unconstrained even by the feeble discipline of "peer review". For example, Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield, who appeared on BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, debating the perils of Facebook with Dr Aric Sigman and Dr Ben Goldacre. [The Perils of Facebook, “Facebook causes cancer”, There is a Greenfield far away, Susan Greenfield Profile] 

3. The UK Prime Minister has set targets to increase the number of pupils in secondary school in England taking science subjects, in particular the "triple science" GCSE exam. [BBC News, 27 February 2009] 

As it happens, my son is currently doing a triple science course at his high school. I find myself particularly puzzled by the chemistry syllabus, which doesn't seem to have very much to do with the chemistry I did at school. My hunch is that they have taken out much of the real science in an attempt to make the subject more "relevant". Sadly, the more they vainly try to make these subjects "interesting", the fewer students appear able and willing to study these subjects seriously at university. 

What these three data points have in common is the idea that foolish and shallow notions of relevance, and ill-considered pseudo-scientific pronouncements by people who should know better, may create a barriers to the development of a genuine interest and deep understanding of science, as well as to properly informed debate on public policy based on good and authoritative science. 

The Prime Minister obviously thinks that science education is a Good Thing. He has doubtless been briefed by his officials that British Industry needs so many scientists a year, whatever it is that scientists do, contributing (in Harold Wilson's phrase) to the White Heat of Technology. (As it happens, Britain has only had one prime minister with a science degree, and I think I may have read somewhere that she thought being a scientist-PM was an even more unlikely achievement than being a woman-PM.) 

But I question the educational value of undifferentiated science. Are schools supposed to teach children lots of random and incoherent bits of science, so that they may grow up to be white-coated experts on a wide range of policy issues? Or is there some macroeconomic formula that depends on a fixed percentage of science graduates? Surely this isn't what science is about. 

When an expert witness is called in a court case, there is the possibility of challenging not only the expertise itself, but also its relevance to this particular case. Perhaps similar challenges should be institutionalized whenever contributions to public debate rest on some claim of scientific authority.

My suggestion to the Parliament Select Committee will therefore be to investigate the nature and source of scientific authority in a democratic society, and to ask how society should assess and evaluate the available scientific expertise.

Ovulation and Sexual Attraction

According to the latest pseudo-science, "wearing red 'boosts attraction' ... experts say that red signals ovulation". [BBC News 28 October 2008]

A previous study showed that "Sexy walks 'keep men off scent' ... those with alluring walks were the furthest away from ovulation ... women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners". [BBC News 8 November 2007]

So if men are attracted to women when they are ovulating, this is because the women are unconsciously broadcasting something; and if men are attracted to women when they are not ovulating, this is because they are unconsciously broadcasting the exact opposite. Got that?

Both pieces of research take female behaviour, as well as male reactions to this behaviour, to be somehow biologically determined. It appears that the researchers expected the sexy walk to coincide with ovulation. But when this hypothesis was disproved they simply reversed the theory, in order to preserve their assumption of biological determinism. That's why I call this stuff pseudo-science.

Cosmic Imperfection?

Three scientists have been awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering a mechanism known as "spontaneous broken symmetry", thought to explain the origins of the universe as we know it.

Under the headline "Cosmic Imperfection Celebrated", Jonathan Amos (BBC Science reporter) describes this mechanism in terms of "tiny - but hugely significant - flaws in the fabric of the Universe".

Words like "imperfection" and "flaw" sound suspiciously like value judgements. And since they lead to the creation of the world, it is perhaps not surprising to find people talking about these so-called imperfections in teleological terms. The God Particle. Et In Arcadia Ego. God Only Knows.

In other words, the effect (and therefore the purpose) of this mechanism is to create life. We are imperfect because the fundamental origins of life are imperfect. Original sin. Or something.

I should stress that Jonathan Amos himself doesn't go this far. However, this kind of quasi-religious discussion seems to follow almost inevitably once you start to attach value judgements to scientific concepts.

This kind of popular discussion is of course completely unscientific, and irrelevant to the scientific breakthrough that won the Nobel prize in the first place. But then, as we've pointed out here before, science journalism often has to strike a difficult balance between pure scientific objectivity and the need to make science more interesting to the general public.

CERN and Conspiracy Theories

If you so want to believe in conspiracy theories that you thought the CERN Large Hadron Collider was a sinister plot to blow up the universe, then you won't be calmed by the news that it is broken.

"Well, er, obviously, you know, they can't tell us what they really saw when they switched on the beam, because it would freak out BOTH the religious lobby AND the science lobby. So they are, like, just pretending that it's broken."

So instead of the scientists getting the hadrons to whizz around in circles, it would be pleasing to imagine that some exotic hadrons are getting scientists to run in panic-circles at high speeds.

Conspiracy theory is often an attempt to impose an artificial elegance on otherwise meaningless events. If the LHC is broken, what does that really mean?

Among other things, of course, CERN bears some responsibility for the World Wide Web. Tim Berners-Lee, who used to work at CERN, is upset that the Internet is now turning against CERN and circulating wild and unscientific rumours about the possibility of disaster [Warning sounded on web's future, BBC News 15 September 2008]. On my Software Industry blog, I compare quashing Rumour on the Internet with one of the Twelve Labours of Hercules.

Namit Chaturvedi suggests that the rumours are a cheap publicity stunt, and the anti-LHC protestors are actually on CERN's payroll. Problem with this theory is that the timing doesn't fit - most of the publicity (and hype) predated the rumours. I prefer the theory that people are circulating the rumours purely to annoy Tim Berners-Lee.


And finally. I searched for CERN on the BBC News Website to find sources for this post, and I got the following results.

Hadron Collider forced to halt
The Large Hadron Collider at Cern is out of action, a week after its launch, when magnets fail as helium leaks into the tunnel.
» 85% relevance | 19/09/2008 | similar stories

Fading giant brought back to life
National Trust volunteers work to restore the Cerne Abbas Giant's famous outline.
» 83% relevance | 16/09/2008 | similar stories

Interesting juxtaposition, huh? Try and make a conspiracy theory out of that, I dare you.

Statins and Supplements

Why do some people take vitamin and mineral supplements? Why do some people (usually on the advice of their doctor) take statins?

Both are thought to improve health. Supplements such as Vitamins A, C and E, together with beta-carotene and selenium, are thought to have an antioxidant effect, attacking so-called free radicals; meanwhile statins are supposed to reduce levels of cholesterol. Both free radicals and cholesterol are commonly blamed for various causes of ill-health and premature death.

Huge amounts of money are spent on both supplements and statins. In Britain, the NHS apparently sees statins as some kind of wonder-drug; Professor Roger Boyle, National Director for Heart Disease in England, hopes to increase the number of people on statins from roughly 3 million at the moment to around 6 or 7 million people. [BBC News, 2 April 2008]

Howeve, there seems to be no evidence that either supplements or statins actually increase life expectancy for the general population, although statins do appear to improve life expectancy for a small number of men (generally those who have already had heart attacks). Some research suggests that vitamins 'may shorten your life' [BBC News, 16 April 2008].

Advocates of both supplements and statins tend to shift their ground at this point. Even if it doesn't increase the length of life, which of course they don't necessarily concede, then it certainly improves the quality of life. (This is of course a much more difficult claim to disprove, since quality of life is more difficult to measure objectively, and the data are harder to come by.)

For my part, I can't see much difference between the supplement debate and the statin debate. I don't understand how people can be strongly in favour of one kind of pill, and strongly against another kind of pill, when they are produced in the same kind of factories and sold on the same kind of logic.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if the benefits of supplements and statins aren't easy to prove. After all, free radicals and cholesterol occur naturally in the human body, and are necessary for life. The idea that you can improve health by simply taking some pill that will reduce the level of a naturally occurring substance seems to conflict with the idea of the human body as a complex, interconnected, largely self-regulating system. I am particularly astonished that many people who think of themselves as "holistic" either don't seem to appreciate the consequences of meddling with this complexity, or they imagine that popping pills can establish a better all-round balance than the body can achieve on its own.

Sources

Wikipedia on Cholesterol: Cholesterol is a lipid found in the cell membranes of all animal tissues. ... Most of the cholesterol in the body is synthesized by the body and some has dietary origin. ... Biosynthesis of cholesterol is directly regulated by the cholesterol levels present, though the homeostatic mechanisms involved are only partly understood.

Wikipedia on Free Radicals: Free radicals play an important role in a number of biological processes, some of which are necessary for life. ... The body has a number of mechanisms to minimize free radical induced damage and to repair damage which does occur.

Wikipedia on the Statin Controversy: Some scientists take a skeptical view of the need for many people to require statin treatment. Given the wide indications for which statins are prescribed, and the declining benefit in groups at lower baseline risk of cardiovascular events, the evidence base for expanded statin use has been questioned by some researchers. A much smaller minority ... question the "lipid hypothesis" itself and argue that elevated cholesterol has not been adequately linked to heart disease. These groups claim that statins are not as beneficial or safe as suggested.

Wikipedia on Antioxidants: Despite the clear role of oxidative stress in cardiovascular disease, controlled studies using antioxidant vitamins have observed no reduction in either the risk of developing heart disease, or the rate of progression of existing disease. This suggests that other substances in fruit and vegetables (possibly flavonoids), or a complex mix of substances, may contribute to the better cardiovascular health of those who consume more fruit and vegetables.

[all articles accessed 16 April 2008]

Update

Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans (May 2009). hahahahahaaa says Ben Goldacre

The Science of Love

Dave Cowan reports on Helen Fisher's talk at the 2008 Ted conference.

"We are not an animal that was made to be happy - we are an animal that was made to reproduce." 

Dave hasn't read her book yet, but he thinks it must be good "because Richard Dawkins endorsed it". 

Fisher reports the clinical results of brain scans that show similar pathways among those who are in love as those who have just recently been dumped. The conclusion is that the "love chemicals" remain activated for some time after terminating a relationship--in fact they can even strengthen amidst unrequited love. Other points of interest:

• the brain regions activated during thoughts of love are the same regions activated during the contemplation of highly risky behavior;
• a broken heart manifests the same physical symptoms as any other physical addiction; and
• all animals in the wild (not in captivity) are discriminating in their choice of mate (except perhaps those slutty, cheating crows).

 

Dave Cowan, TED Friday afternoon (4 March 2008)

Helen Fisher, Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love (Henry Holt, 2004) 

Helen Fisher, Why We Love, Why We Cheat (TED Talks, February 2006)

Helen Fisher, The Brain in Love (TED Talks, February 2008)

DIUS ex machina

Buried in a comment on his blog, Scribe points to a recent speech at the RSA by John Denham, UK Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS press release, Times article) Denham wants to improve public engagement in science and increase the influence of scientific evidence on public policy.

But are scientists adequately equipped to contribute to public policy? If this is now seen by the UK Government as an essential part of the function of a scientist in a democracy, how will DIUS develop the additional skills?

For example, for a scientist to contribute intelligently to a debate on some controversial topic such as genetic engineering or nuclear power, it is not sufficient to have a thorough command of some narrow slice of technical knowledge, it is also surely necessary to have a broad understanding of the nature and history of technological development and risk, and an ability to assess and communicate the latest technology in a proper social context.

Will these topics now become mandatory parts of the undergraduate science curriculum, or will scientists be encouraged to take some additional courses (a "PostGraduate Science Policy Certificate" perhaps) to qualify them to act as expert witnesses in public policy debate?

Or does Denham assume that scientists will generally be on the "right side" of any political controversy, so he merely wants to coopt their general support for things the government has already decided to do.

Intergalactic violence

Astronomers and/or science reporters are trying to sex up some astronomical events that are taking place in a distant galaxy.

Black hole 'bully' blasts galaxy

by Paul Rincon, BBC Science reporter, Monday, 17 December 2007.

It is the first time this form of galactic violence has been witnessed by astronomers.

The larger of the two galaxies in 3C321 - dubbed the "death star galaxy" by the astronomers - has a jet emanating from the vicinity of the black hole at its centre. The unfortunate smaller galaxy has apparently swung into the jet's line of fire.

This jet could be causing all sorts of problems for the smaller galaxy it is pummeling.

It is possible that it would not all be bad news for the galaxy being struck by the jet. The massive influx of energy and radiation from the jet may induce the formation of large numbers of stars and planets once its initial wake of destruction is complete.

I sympathize with the desire to describe some distant and obscure phenomenon in Homeric terms (and brave 3C321 smashed his pitiless particle stream into the unseeing face of the oncoming galaxy, scattering planets with the force of his blow). Homer did the opposite - describing the actions of heroes as if they possessed the unstoppable force of planets.

But it's bad science. Galaxies don't have problems or bad news. And the idea that the bad news might be moderated by the happy creation of stars and planets is just pathetic.

Wikipedia: Pathetic Fallacy