Get this one past the ethics committee

"Dr" Gillian McKeith[1] has famously claimed on many occasions that chlorophyll oxygenates the blood. She's the one that people like that mean ol' nastychops Dr Ben Goldacre[2] is forever banging on about. Well I've come up with an experiment that will silence the good "Dr"'s detractors for ever.

Since "Dr" McKeith has kindly shared her findings that Chlorophyll oxygenates the blood, I'm sure she won't mind being placed in a deoxygenated chamber with access to all the dark green leafy veg she can lay her hands on. This will demonstrate the effectiveness of chlorophyll as a blood oxygenator. Obviously she's not claiming you can get your full 550 litres of oxygen per day from chlorophyll (or at least I assume she's not). So perhaps a hypo-oxygenated environment would be better. Then the good "Dr" can demonstrate how the chlorophyll allows her to maintain her O2 saturation.

This is a potentially lucrative experiment too. She'd stand to make $1million US from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). JREF is potentially the most generous research council in the world: $1million for a single experiment - you don't get that off the BBSRC[3].


[1]Thats '"Dr"', not 'Dr'.
[2]Thats 'Dr', not '"Dr"'.
[3] Not even if you're a Dr, not a "Dr".

Shame...

I'm a waste of bandwidth, people.

Contrast my post below with the ones at Heblog

OTOH, I can inform those who don't siarad the cymraeg that I have learnt that "manteision band eang" is Welsh for "the benefits of broadband". Not sure "Dog Police" is one of them...

What in the flinging, flying crap

This should probably go to Learned or Dreamed (please, please, say it was just a dream):



Maddest. Thing. Ever...

Trust me - I'm a scientist.

Productive day[1] - I've had one of my breakthrough hypotheses published in a mainstream forum[2], and had very positive peer review[3]. I should thank Dr Jeevani Mantotta and Dr David Corney for their useful comments in the development of my new theory.

[1] Only 0.4 times as constructive as if I were a man - see below.

[2]The Guardian Unlimited Talkboard

[3]
"MontyCristo - 12:23pm Jan 10, 2007 GMT (#67 of 102)

hahahaha!

Excellent "

Update: I've come to the conclusion that, being a mere woman, it's probably the best I'll ever do. Is it too late to retrain as something girly? A hooker perhaps?

I'm less than half the man you are...

Great post at MetaFilter. It's particularly about women in science but illuminates the consequences of thinking in sweeping generalisations.

The most salutory of the articles linked to is the story of Ben (ne Barbara) Barres.

For a drier but more "evidence based" view see instead the story about impact factors. Women in science need to be 2.5 times more productive to be adjudged equal to their male peers.

The innate intellectual superiority of the white male[1]

Private Eye's round up of 2006 reminded me of a "funny if it wasn't so scary" news story from the middle of last year.

Arse and Elbow Award to the [British National Party's] 11 dim-witted councillors in Barking and Dagenham, all but one of whom failed to back a measure they themselves had proposed because they had lost interest in the debate and weren't listening when the vote was called.

The fearless Barking and Dagenham recorder tells a slightly different story:

Laughter broke out as only one of the 11 BNP councillors raised his hand to vote for the amendment.

After the meeting, Cllr Barnbrook claimed the mistake had occurred because his party thought they were supposed to press buzzers to vote.

Apparently the new councillors don't know the difference between a council meeting and Family Fortunes.


[1] I know that four of the 11 councillors in question were women. But then, nobody's arguing for the genetically determined intellectual superiority of the female sex[2], so it's not as funny.


[2] If you don't know who's arguing for the innate intellectual superiority of the white male (or in some cases, the Asian male) see the Bell Curve. It's been stronglr criticised as scientific racisism, but it's worse than that - it's unscientific racism. It falls into two very simple logical fallacies straight off the bat - "asserting the consequent" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("it follows x, therefore it was caused by x). This is before one even takes into account the paucity of evidence - indeed the counter evidence - that IQ tests are important determiners of anything other than the ability to do well in IQ tests.

For a lay person's on a scientifically literate approach to looking at the dual effects of "nature" and "nurture" on intelligence (i.e. one that controls for confounding variables) the News Scientist has a nice article here.

Fun with Bayes

God exists - with at probability of .67. I want to see the priors for that!

RDF

I stumbled across a link to the newly constituted Richard Dawkins Foundation. The introduction is a well worded statement (also available as a video) which gives an insight into Dawkins' motivation. I found this statement chimed strongly with my passionate yearning that the beauty of rationality, reason and science should reach a much wider audience.

I often find Dawkins a tad unpalatable - he gives the impression that he believes that he has found "the truth" rather than "a better explanation of how the human mind works that raises still further questions". Contrasted with the humility and passion of science writers like Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, Dawkins' style seems more akin to that of the fundamentalists he holds in such disdain.

His position, however abrasively put, is firmly pro-reason. And it seems, with this foundation that he intends to lead people to reason by reason, rather than through provocation. And what is more, he intends to do this on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously. The foundation will facilitate the flow of funding and ideas between the UK and the USA. Some of the stated aims are inspiring ambitious:

"Research. We intend to sponsor research into the psychological basis of unreason... Research of this kind would be supported in the form of grants to universities in America and Britain or wherever the best research can be done."

The benefits of this are obvious - research that increases the understanding of the human experience has intrinsic value.

"Education. Within the limits on political activity imposed by the charity laws of the respective countries, we would seek to support rational and scientific education at all ages, and to oppose the subversion of scientific education, for example by the well-financed efforts to teach creationism in science classes. Depending on how much money we raise, we would hope to subsidize the publication of books, pamphlets, DVD's and other educational materials."

I find this aim laudable. At the moment, because of the deeper pockets of religious groups, intelligent design (ID) resources are being sent to schools for use in science lessons. Banning the use of these resources is deeply unsatisfactory - it gives the impression that science thrives where there is no controversy. On the contrary, science thrives where there is well reasoned, observation driven controversy. Funding resources that counter the flaws in the ID position (including the canards on entropy and "just a theory") help to train a generation of scientifically literate critical thinkers that can discern a good argument from a bad argument, and that know what the current state of our knowledge about evolution is.


"Database of lecturers. We intend to keep a list, organized by regions in both America and Britain, of people, in universities and elsewhere, who might be willing to receive invitations to lecture. I receive a large number of such invitations myself. I accept as many as I can, but I canÂ’t accept all of them. It would be extremely helpful to have, at my disposal, a list of younger people who might be less well known at this stage of their career, but who would probably give a much better lecture than I ever could."

At the "commencement address" at my graduation from UCL, the VC made a good point - that there are scientists who are good at science, and there are scientists that are good at bringing on the next generation of scientists. The best scientists are those who do both. Having bought into the popular opinion of Dawkins as somewhat of an arrogant individual, I find myself rapidly reassessing my feelings in the light of this.

"Charitable giving by secularists to humanitarian good causes. Major disasters like earthquakes or tornados prompt a desire by decent people of all persuasions to help. I, for one, am always anxious that my money should go to help the disaster victims but should not fall into the hands of missionaries or other church-based organizations. Even if these organizations do eventually pass it on to the victims, they often do so with strings attached. Some of us are keen that no proportion of our donations should fall into the hands of missionaries."

As a humanist it offends me deeply when people claim that Christian ethics or Islamic morality or religious "goodness" are what motivate people to help one another. Until the charitable and voluntary efforts of humanists are recognised then the position that religion is the only font of morality and fellow feeling will never be challenged. I could here bang on about my work for charidee at this point but I won't.

Unfortunately he then goes on to use the loaded term churchh contamination" - heigh ho!

"Consciousness-raising. Feminists and homosexuals have taught us the value of consciousness-raising... I am more interested in raising consciousness about something else: the habit,practicedd not only by religious people, of labeling children by the religion of their parents. This is a Catholic child. That is a Muslim child. I want everybody to flinch when they hear such a phrase, just as they would if they heard, That is a Marxist child. "

An interesting position - I'm still trying to work out where this fits in the matrix of values, judgments and taboos that make up my "moral compass". Rhetorically excellent device though.

I'm still not certain where my rationalistic "tithe" will go. I'm increasingly uncertain that the still small voice of skeptical rationality can't win against the convinced irrational. Trying to prevail that way feels playing chess against an opponent who is playing "knuckles"[1] - it's frustrating and stupid. But do we need a foundation to set people on the "right path"? Should those who seek reason prepare for a propaganda war? I will be attending Louis Costandinos' talk at Skeptics in the Pub with interest.


[1] A game popular at my primary school in which - to prove "hardness" - one took as many blows across the knuckles with a ruler as possible. Like conkers but without the conkers.

Monster Mash

Popcorn at the ready

Trailer: James Cameron's Hamlet, Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger


Adverts: Cillit Bang


Main Feature: The Matr-erminator

Lightning man's trousers ruined

Not in the way I imagined

"Strive as you will to elevate woman, nevertheless the disabilities and degradation of her dress, together with that large group of false views of the uses of her being and of her relations to man, symbolised and perpetuated by her dress, will make your striving vain."

Gerrit Smith, abolitionist and founder of the movement for women's dress reform, 1885.

It is like when you light a match and eat it...

... 2 out of 12

Police in anti-terrorist raid, press not interested.

It seems that hauls of bomb making equipment are only interesting when found in a muslim home. Maybe John Reid could give a stern talking to Robert Cottage and David Bolus Jackson's mum and dad. <John Reid>Did they not see the telltale signs? The (BNP) literatuure? A carelessly abandoned nuclear and biological protection suit? </John Reid>

Mixed messages

Imagine the scenario: your job allows, nay requires that you stand, heavily armed, outside the embassy of the regime currently shelling your family. Wouldn't it be an act of the utmost professionalism to ask if you can take your large machine gun and guard someone who you didn't feel an overwhelming urge to give, y'know, maybe just a little ding 'round the earhole? The D*ily M*il (I feel dirty just typing those words!) thinks not. Apparently,

"Critics [i.e. - the D*ily M*il] accused Met chiefs of bowing to political correctness, saying the decision set a dangerous precedent."


Which precedent would that be? The one that says that moral issues should not be considered when deciding what duties our public servants carry out? That one has already been set - as long as you are fireman who's afraid of being wolf whistled at.

So the D*ily M*il reasons thus:

If you might get wolf whistled at by gayers then obviously that's very stressful and you should just disobey orders and not turn up for your duties. However, if you are placed in a stressful situation whilst armed then the professional thing to do is "suck it up, beardy-boy".

From the M*il's own article:

"Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority... said: 'I think it was crass management in the first place. They should have recognised there could have been a problem and not suggested this officer be posted at this embassy.'"

Christ - the M*il has me agreeing with Tories now! The Diplomatic Protection Group are not your usual bobbies - they are highly skilled and heavily armed professionals and I for one am glad that their stresses are taken seriously. Dunno about you, but I'd rather face an offended fireman armed with a hose than a grief stricken marksman with an automatic weapon, no matter what the D*ily M*il might think.

Still - at least I'm back to my usual ground state of barely suppressed rage now. It's better than coffee I tell ya!

The new, caring tories:

Am I the only one that thinks this is a little... off?

Odd but interesting:

Jacobson and Bygdeman, 1998: Obstetric care and proneness of offspring to suicide as adults: case-control study,


(Bertil Jacobson, professor emeritus, Huddinge University Hospital and Marc Bygdeman, professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karolinska Hospital).

Given the faact my mother is still complaining, nearly 32 years later, you should keep me away from firearms, trains, heights, blades and ropes - all methods of "unambiguous suicide by violent means". Apparently there may also be a correlation with accident proneness. I'd go on but I just spilled tea on myself.

Polishes own trumpet... takes deep breath...

The Guadrian (sic)

Big shout out to Kathleen for spotting that one. The original is here.

Addendum: In the interests of fairness I should say that the misspelling is probably the least interesting part of that article!

I'll go blind

I know blogrolling yourself is dirtier than excessive self-citation but I'm quite proud of my last couple of No2ID posts:

The clones are coming: commentary on the demonstration of an ICAO ePassport cloning exploit.

STC reports on ID Cards: s review of the conclusions of the Science and Technology Select Committee's report on the ID Card scheme.

Or you could just play the video in the post below and go blind yourself...

Let's zuiiken English

So it looked like Robertu san was having all the fun - til I found 'this