Inventing temperature - a plug

Prof. Hasok Chang, a colleague from the Evidence Science project, won the 2006 Lakatos Award in Philosophy of Science for his book Inventing Temperature. If you're in London tomorrow (the 18th April) and can make it to the LSE in time, be sure to catch his talk. It promises to be extremely interesting.

Code of Conduct

Plenty of interesting fodder in the carnival (see post below), particularly in the light of the recent attention paid to the egregious posts - including those inciting sexually violent acts - on Kathy Sierra's Creating Passionate Users blog.

For my £0.02 (that's like what - $0.04 US at current exchange rates?) in the light of what's happened to Sierra and others, I appreciate where Tim O'Reilly's Code of Blogging Conduct (CoBC) is coming from. Briefly - there are 7 Principles O'Reilly suggests:

1. Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.

2. Label your tolerance level for abusive comments.


3. Consider eliminating anonymous comments.


4. Ignore the trolls.

5. Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.


6. If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.


7. Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.


The notion of a Code of Conduct always raises the hackles of a woolly liberal like me. There's an instinctual belief that those trying to dictate acceptable behaviour will dictate the terms in such a way that it benefits them alone. But I think O'Reilly's done a sterling job here, though I'm not sure whether I'd call this a code of conduct. As you'd expect from O'Reilly they are a clear, interesting and useful set of how to's that will help make blogging more fruitful for those who choose to adopt them.

Principles 1, 2 and 3 are suggestions for good editorial practice, and the way they're implemented will vary from blog to blog. O'Reilly hat tips Kaylea Hascall for the notion of a set of Creative Commons type badges that will let readers know what "flavour" of comment you'll allow. Me - ad hominem attack are a nono; I'm relaxed about profanity; but absolutely no tales of some 16 year old babysitter killed by an axe wielding maniac or similar that conclude "if you don't post this comment to 15 other blogs you will die a horrible death". If someone can make me a succinct badge that conveys that I'll be eternally grateful!

Principles one and two kind of run together for me. If you have an editorial policy on your blog regarding the comments you'll allow then this should be made explicit. There's no point hoping that someone who's recently turned on to your blog will "get" the culture you're fostering. An explicit declaration of what will and won't be posted saves the blogger from a lot of whining from deleted posters whose amour propre has been damaged, and saves would be posters a lot of time and energy, if they know a priori what doesn't fly on your site.

Principle 3 has caused a bit of a ruckus in the blogging community. There are many (such as the fab NHS Blog Doctor) who can't divulge their identities for professional reasons, and others who can't or won't for personal reasons. However, I think that there are gradations of anonymity - there are those who know me in the "big room with the blue ceiling" that I wouldn't dream of giving my phone number to for example. A consistent online identity - even if it's nothing more than a username - is at least "fair dealing" when it comes to tying together a picture of who says what. I like Slashdot's default guest handle of "anonymous coward" - it's hard to upbraid someone about their behaviour if you can't see a pattern of behaviour emerging. For the purposes of a useful CoC, anonymity must allow you to retain as much privacy about your real life identity as you would retain in talking in any location where you might be overheard. Those posters who don't use a consistent identity - whether posting as "anonymous coward" or using endless sock puppets - should be taken about as seriously as a phonecall from a Mr "Haywood Djablomé".

I find 4 very hard - I think most serious bloggers, particularly the scientists and engineers, all do at some level. At the bottom is a difficulty in recognising some of the less obvious trolls. This is a result of my perplexity in not understanding how someone can be engaging in a discussion in anything less than a spirit of openness and goodwill. Thankfully I've never been high profile enough to have truly bothersome trolling. Maybe the Scientiae carnival will change all that...

5 and 7 will be ignored by trolls, but are at least good reminders for those of us who maybe just get a little het up sometimes. I know I prefer delivering the bad news about someone's diminished intellectual stature and personal effectiveness ("you're a jackass") in private than in public.

Number 6, read in conjunction with number 5, suggests that bad behaviour be tackled offline. One of the problems I've encountered in other forums is that trolls use this propensity for the "good citizens" to address the troll privately to divide and rule. The complainant is left with the impression that they're the only one that finds the behaviour to be out of line. It's only when the members of the forum can name the behaviour as being unacceptable in public that they realise they're not the only one having a problem with the troll in question. There needs to be some sort of corollary to 5 - when private communication fails, we have a right or perhaps a duty to calmly and dispassionately name the poor behaviour in public.

So I've been won over. The Code of Conduct looks reasonable and useful. It will only be noticed by the "good citizens" - but if nothing else it will empower us to name bad behaviour. The Internet is a public place - but so is the bus stop. You're having a edifying, enlightning or entertaining conversation, waiting for the bus. Some idiots keep barging in to make threats, or derailing the conversation with loud yelling. Not only that, they do so in disguise. You'd be happy to call the behaviour unacceptable. Don't settle for less online.

I've been Carnivalled!

The latest Scientae carnival has just been compiled at See Jane Compute. Big thank you to Jane, the editor. I've never had anything I felt was worth submitting in the past (though the video for Dog Police came close - someone out there must know how that freak of nature came about). This issue ciovered the topic of spring cleaning (or taking out the trash) - so I posted my rather bleak entry on my time as a lecturer (roughly equivalent to a US assistant professor I believe).

Long story short - I'm listed among such paragons as Post Doc Ergo Propter Doc, Pandagon and, currently top of my RSS feeds, Female Science Professor.

Hope to see some new faces around over the next few days. Welcome to Auntie Em's - help yourself to a cookie!

Nowhere to run to baby - nowhere to Hyde!

I'm sorry - I've become one of those annoying people who badger people for money: and I don't even have the decency to hang 'round the high street with a puffa jacket and a clipboard in order to do so. To the right you'll see a fancy-schmancy widget that will allow you to sponsor me to drag my sorry carcass 'round Hyde Park this autumn. Given that, in the aftermath of a 3km run, I currently have shin splints that would have caused Torquemada to exclaim "Oh I say, steady on", this is a bigger ask than it sounds!

Anyways - the money's going to Cancer Research UK - which is enough to put the shin splints into perspective. So cough up what you can and I'll try not to cough up before the finish line.

EDIT: No need to be as generous as David has been - now I know what it's worth to have me out of the flat!

Careering off the road

All the careers advice I see aimed at scientists, particularly women scientists, says "minimise teaching", "avoid administration", "be cutthroat about the committees you agree to join", "publish, publish publish", [pdf] "avoid the lure of the 'velvet ghettos'".

I used to think this was all overly cynical. Instead of a straight postdoc, or the lure of the industry and mamon - both of which were available to me after my PhD - I went into teaching in a new university. Full of the fires of idealism I embraced student contact time, I volunteered for committees and panels, I agreed to devise and run an new course. I relegated my research to evenings and weekends.

I had what I guess you might call a nervous breakdown.

I cried on Sundays, pretty much from the moment I got up, because of the thought of going to work the next day. I'd physically shake on the way into work. I forgot to eat - my body was so loaded with 'fight or flight' signals that mere drives like hunger and tiredness failed to register.

Sounds funny to say, but after the stresses of a PhD none of this seemed too strange. I don't think that either I or my husband realised at first what an awful trap I'd set for myself. I managed to grind out a couple of papers but I had no enthusiasm, no drive too do any research. It was only when I found myself contemplating "causing delays on the Northern line"[1] that we realised what a mess I'd got myself into.

I fled, a year ago, for the "straight postdoc" - even though I now only see my husband every other week, and spend 10 hours a week on trains.

Am I over it? Not entirely. Not yet. The thought of running a course, of being co-opted into being surrogate parent, agony aunt and punching bag for students makes me shake. I'm not sure that anyone who hasn't lectured can understand how it feels.

There are people (or so I'm told) that thrive on the teaching. There may even be those who find that teaching inspires their research as well as the other way around. But a novice, female lecturer will always attract this kind of awkward customer

I will plan to contest the grade you have given me in this class when I get it because I know it will be much higher with any other teacher. I am a very religious man and you are not a bad person but you do not choose your words with enough care like a teacher should. You try to be objective and the very attempt becomes your flaw because you try so hard to grade fairly and comment wisely that you become biased to your own ideas... You grade my papers poorly but do not realize that you do so because they reflect your teaching skills. Other people may have done well with your skills but I did not and would have talked to you but what you said about grading fairly made me uncomfortable.

As I read that I shuddered. The blogger who received this, Acephalous, still misses teaching. I don't.

I had 300 students on just one of my courses. Maybe only 15 to 20% were this bad. That's still 45-60 emails a week on average of this kind of mind numbing, soul sapping cant. "I didn't take the test because I didn't come to your lectures so I didn't know when it was", "I couldn't give my presentation because I forgot", "I don't like my grade. If you don't change it I'll complain".

It leaves you too tired to deal with the real problems: the student whose parents are pushing her into a marriage she's not ready for, the student who's had his jaw broken in a racist attack, the pregnant student who just needs an extra week on her assignment, because the morning sickness is so bad, the Chinese student whose English is poor and who is dreadfully lonely and is thinking of going back to China. In each of these situations, and a hundred more mundane, the coughs, colds and sniffles, you find yourself having to weigh up being supportive, just, encouraging and helpful. You end up acting as counsellor, arbitrator, judge and engineer: all roles I have no training for. The job so often requires the wisdom of Solomon.


I wasn't thick skinned enough. I couldn't develop the armour of cynicism that allows you to go home at the end of the day and say "not my problem anymore". I was trying to be, in the words of another Emma, the New Colossus:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; send these, the homeless tempest-tossed, to me.

But I'm not made of such stern stuff as her.

I'm emerging - just. I'm starting to like research again. I'm starting to care about science. I'm starting to be mindful of the fact that my husband and I both have jobs that will let us, incrementally, add to the store of human knowledge. But I miss believing that, by being a lecturer, I'd have the peace and freedom to throw open that store to others.

[1] A euphemism - thankfully I never made it into this paper.


scientiae-carnival

Billy-an Logic

If you can print onto thin cardboard, and have a fiver to spare, consider investing in these very stylich Logic Goats.

And if you prefer your logic to be more philosophical than mathematical, ponder these answers from various strands of philosophy to one of the most pressing problems of modern human existence.

Food for thought

The Scientific American has an update on research that lead to the caffeinated donught, with suggestions for future research.

The "great global warming swindle" swindle

The brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant Ben Goldacre reports on a fantastic article from the Indie on the (increasingly laughable) Channel 4 doc "the Great Global Warming Swindle" (GGWS).

To whet your appetite, here are Connor's graphs:



Martin Durkin, the writer and director of the GGWS, has form in this area. The ITC ruled that his 1997 documentary "Against Nature" (also for Channel 4)

"The programmes breached the Programme Code in respect of the failure to make the four interviewees adequately aware of the nature of the programmes, and the way their contributions were edited. The Commission directed Channel 4 to issue an on-screen apology to the individuals concerned."

Durkin's editorial fastidiousness is apparent for all to see in the Connor article:

[C]rucially, the axis along the bottom of the [Global Temperature] graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

Very "wiggly-lined"? And Channel 4 pay this man to make science documentaries? They'll be paying Jade Goody to make documentaries on race relations next.

Ni Hao? No way!

I'm sufficiently seditious to be banned in China! I'm so proud!

Listen boss, I got a whisper of a blag going down in SW1

The DTI has ripped 68 million quid out of the ringfenced (hah!) science budget for the recompense of failed capitalists at Rover and BNFL. Us whitecoats have been worked over and no mistake. The villains claim that because the money is "only 1% of the science budget taken over the next three years" (significantly more than 3% for this year then, for those who can work out amortisation rates), it doesn't matter. Yeah right - I remember that defence working well in The Sweeney:

Regan:

[slams table]

Don't lie to me Wicks you bastard- you're the draughtsman[1] for this blag[2] - it's got your dabs[3] all over it!

Malcolm Wicks MP, Minster for Science, DTI (for it is he):
It's a fair cop Regan. I'll turn Queen's[4]. To be fair though - we only took 1% of what would have been in that peter[5] over the next three years.

Carter:

Oh well in that case boss, we'll just let him go


Regan:

Yeah, alright then, hop it. We're the Sweeny son, and we haven't had any dinner[6].

Carter:
[to Regan]

I fancy you meself in that moustache[7]


Regan:
[laughs, draws deeply on cigarette]

Gis a kiss![7]


[Cut to Credits]



Glossary for non afficionados of 70s cop show slang:
[1] Planner
[2] Theft, particularly of payroll
[3] Fingerprints
[4] Queen's Evidence
[5] Safe
[6] Actual dialogue from The Sweeney - Ser1 Ep1: "Ringer"
[7] Actual dialogue from The Sweeney - Ser1 Ep7: "The Placer"

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